Lawyerly

GR No. 191018

2016-01-25

BRION, J.

Whoever alleges a fact has the burden of proving it. This is a basic legal principle that equally applies to civil and criminal cases. In a medical malpractice case, the plaintiff has the duty of proving its elements, namely: (1) a duty of the defendant to his patient; (2) the defendant's breach of this duty; (3) injury to the patient; and (4) proximate causation between the breach and the injury suffered.[17] In civil cases, the plaintiff must prove these elements by a preponderance of evidence.

GR No. 191018

2016-01-25

CARLOS BORROMEO v. FAMILY CARE HOSPITAL

BRION, J.

A medical professional has the duty to observe the standard of care and exercise the degree of skill, knowledge, and training ordinarily expected of other similarly trained medical professionals acting under the same circumstances.[18] A breach of the accepted standard of care constitutes negligence or malpractice and renders the defendant liable for the resulting injury to his patient.[19]

GR No. 171127

2015-03-11

NOEL CASUMPANG v. NELSON CORTEJO

BRION, J.

To successfully pursue a medical malpractice suit, the plaintiff (in this case, the deceased patient's heir) must prove that the doctor either failed to do what a reasonably prudent doctor would have done, or did what a reasonably prudent doctor would not have done; and the act or omission had caused injury to the patient.[34] The patient's heir/s bears the burden of proving his/her cause of action.

GR No. 163879

2014-07-30

DR. ANTONIO P. CABUGAO v. PEOPLE

PERALTA, J.

To be sure, whether or not a physician has committed an "inexcusable lack of precaution" in the treatment of his patient is to be determined according to the standard of care observed by other members of the profession in good standing under similar circumstances bearing in mind the advanced state of the profession at the time of treatment or the present state of medical science. In accepting a case, a doctor in effect represents that, having the needed training and skill possessed by physicians and surgeons practicing in the same field, he will employ such training, care and skill in the treatment of his patients. He, therefore, has a duty to use at least the same level of care that any other reasonably competent doctor would use to treat a condition under the same circumstances.[26] Sadly, Dr. Ynzon did not display that degree of care and precaution demanded by the circumstances.

GR No. 167366

2012-09-26

DR. PEDRO DENNIS CERENO v. CA

PEREZ, J.

The type of lawsuit which has been called medical malpractice or, more appropriately, medical negligence, is that type of claim which a victim has available to him or her to redress a wrong committed by a medical professional which has caused bodily harm. In order to successfully pursue such a claim, a patient must prove that a health care provider, in most cases a physician, either failed to do something which a reasonably prudent health care provider would have done, or that he or she did something that a reasonably prudent provider would not have done; and that the failure or action caused injury to the patient.[13] Stated otherwise, the complainant must prove: (1) that the health care provider, either by his act or omission, had been negligent, and (2) that such act or omission proximately caused the injury complained of.

GR No. 158461

2012-08-22

DR. EDUARDO AQUINO v. CALAYAG

ABAD, J.

To successfully mount a medical malpractice action, the plaintiff should establish four basic things: (1) duty; (2) breach; (3) injury; and (4) proximate causation.[23] The evidence should show that the physician or surgeon, either failed to do something which a reasonably prudent physician or surgeon would have done, or that he or she did something that a reasonably prudent physician or surgeon would not have done; and that the failure or action caused injury to the patient.[24]

GR No. 165279

2011-06-07

DR. RUBI LI v. SPS. REYNALDO

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

The type of lawsuit which has been called medical malpractice or, more appropriately, medical negligence, is that type of claim which a victim has available to him or her to redress a wrong committed by a medical professional which has caused bodily harm. In order to successfully pursue such a claim, a patient must prove that a health care provider, in most cases a physician, either failed to do something which a reasonably prudent health care provider would have done, or that he or she did something that a reasonably prudent provider would not have done; and that that failure or action caused injury to the patient.[51]

GR No. 135715

2011-04-13

PRESIDENTIAL AD HOC FACT- FINDING COMMITTEE ON BEHEST LOANS v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO AS OMBUDSMAN

PEREZ, J.

True, the Ombudsman is a constitutionally created body with constitutionally mandated independence. Despite this, however, the Ombudsman comes within the purview of the Court's power of judicial review[39] - a peculiar concept of Philippine Ombudsman, embodied in Article VIII, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution[40] - which serves as a safety net against its capricious and arbitrary acts.[41] Thus, in Garcia-Rueda v. Pascasio,[42] the Court held that "while the Ombudsman has the full discretion to determine whether or not a criminal case is to be filed, the Court is not precluded from reviewing the Ombudsman's action when there is grave abuse of discretion."[43] This is because, "while the Ombudsman enjoys, as it must, complete independence, it cannot and must not lose track of the law, which it is bound to uphold and obey."[44]

GR No. 156337

2007-09-28

UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK v. ALBERTO T. LOOYUKO

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

A preliminary investigation is essentially inquisitorial, and its function is merely to determine the existence of probable cause.[31] Probable cause has been defined as "the existence of such fact and circumstances as would excite the belief, in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the knowledge of the prosecution, that the person charged was guilty of the crime for which he was prosecuted."[32] The term does not mean actual and positive cause nor does it import absolute certainty.[33] It is merely based on opinion and reasonable belief.[34] Thus, a finding of probable cause does not require an inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction.[35] It is enough that it is believed that the act or omission complained of constitutes the offense charged.[36] Precisely, there is a trial for the reception of evidence of the prosecution in support of the charge.[37]

GR NO. 166797

2007-07-10

JOSE M. GALARIO v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

While the Ombudsman has the full discretion to determine whether or not a criminal case should be filed, this Court is not precluded from reviewing the Ombudsman's action when there is an abuse of discretion, in which case Rule 65 of the Rules of Court may exceptionally be invoked pursuant to Section I, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution.[33] Finally, it bears emphasizing once again the extent of the powers of the Ombudsman in the fulfillment of its constitutional mandate as protector of the people. Article XI, Section 13 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, enumerates the powers, functions, and duties of the Office of the Ombudsman, among which is to:(1) Investigate on its own, or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public official, employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient. The Ombudsman Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6770) likewise provides:

GR NO. 168512

2007-03-20

ORLANDO D. GARCIA v. RANIDA D. SALVADOR

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Negligence is the failure to observe for the protection of the interest of another person that degree of care, precaution and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand,[20] whereby such other person suffers injury. For health care providers, the test of the existence of negligence is: did the health care provider either fail to do something which a reasonably prudent health care provider would have done, or that he or she did something that a reasonably prudent health care provider would not have done; and that failure or action caused injury to the patient;[21] if yes, then he is guilty of negligence.

GR NOS. 168830-31

2007-02-06

ERNESTO M. DE CHAVEZ v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Petitioners make mountain on the use of the words "liable for violation x x x" employed by the Ombudsman. A review of the specific powers of the Ombudsman under the Constitution, the laws and jurisprudential pronouncements is in order. Both the 1987 Constitution and the Ombudsman Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6770) empower the public respondent to investigate and prosecute on its own or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public official or employee, office or agency when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient.[22] By virtue of this power,[23] it may conduct a preliminary investigation for the mere purpose of determining whether there is a sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial.[24]

GR NO. 126297

2007-01-31

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES v. NATIVIDAD

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

This is a clear case of medical malpractice or more appropriately, medical negligence. To successfully pursue this kind of case, a patient must only prove that a health care provider either failed to do something which a reasonably prudent health care provider would have done, or that he did something that a reasonably prudent provider would not have done; and that failure or action caused injury to the patient.[11] Simply put, the elements are duty, breach, injury and proximate causation. Dr, Ampil, as the lead surgeon, had the duty to remove all foreign objects, such as gauzes, from Natividad's body before closure of the incision. When he failed to do so, it was his duty to inform Natividad about it. Dr. Ampil breached both duties. Such breach caused injury to Natividad, necessitating her further examination by American doctors and another surgery. That Dr. Ampil's negligence is the proximate cause[12] of Natividad's injury could be traced from his act of closing the incision despite the information given by the attending nurses that two pieces of gauze were still missing. That they were later on extracted from Natividad's vagina established the causal link between Dr. Ampil's negligence and the injury. And what further aggravated such injury was his deliberate concealment of the missing gauzes from the knowledge of Natividad and her family.

GR NOS. 169727-28

2006-08-18

BRIG. GEN. JOSE S. RAMISCAL v. SANDIGANBAYAN

CALLEJO, SR., J.

As a rule, courts should not interfere with the Ombudsman's investigatory power, exercised through the Ombudsman Prosecutors, and the authority to determine the presence or absence of probable cause,[32] except when the finding is tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. In such case, the aggrieved party may file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.[33] Indeed, if the Ombudsman does not take essential facts into consideration in the determination of probable cause, there is abuse of discretion.[34] As we ruled in Mendoza-Arce v. Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas),[35] a writ of certiorari may issue in any of the following instances: When necessary to afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused;

GR NO. 164664

2006-07-20

CARLOS C. FUENTES v. SANDIGANBAYAN

CALLEJO, SR., J.

As a rule, courts should not interfere with the Ombudsman's investigatory power, exercised through the Special Prosecutor, and the authority to determine the presence or absence of probable cause, except when the finding is tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.[37] In such case, the aggrieved party may file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.[38] Indeed, if the Ombudsman does not take essential facts into consideration in the determination of probable cause, there is abuse of discretion.[39] As we ruled in Mendoza-Arce v. Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas),[40] a writ of certiorari may issue in any of the following instances: When necessary to afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused;

GR No. 137448

2002-01-31

GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. BENGSON COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS

DAVIDE JR., C.J.

There is "grave abuse of discretion" where "a power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility so patent and gross as to amount to evasion of positive duty or virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by, or in contemplation of law."[57]

GR No. 142738

2001-12-14

DR. HONORATA BAYLON v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN

PARDO, J.

As a general rule, this Court does not interfere with the Ombudsman's determination of the existence of probable cause.[49] However, this non-interference does not apply when there is grave abuse in the exercise of such discretion.[50] In such a situation, the petitioner may file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court.[51] There is "grave abuse of discretion" where "a power is exercised in an arbitrary, capricious, whimsical[52] or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility so patent and gross as to amount to evasion of positive duty or virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by, or in contemplation of law."[53]

GR No. 138042

2001-02-28

JOSEFINA v. GIL

PARDO, J.

Petitioners' only recourse in this appeal is to prove that the Court of Appeals exercised its power "in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility so patent and gross as to amount to evasion of positive duty or virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by, or in contemplation of law."[54] This they failed to do.[55]

	GR No. 191018 2016-01-25	CARLOS BORROMEO v. FAMILY CARE HOSPITAL BRION, J.
Whoever alleges a fact has the burden of proving it. This is a basic legal principle that equally applies to civil and criminal cases. In a medical malpractice case, the plaintiff has the duty of proving its elements, namely: (1) a duty of the defendant to his patient; (2) the defendant's breach of this duty; (3) injury to the patient; and (4) proximate causation between the breach and the injury suffered.[17] In civil cases, the plaintiff must prove these elements by a preponderance of evidence.
	GR No. 191018 2016-01-25	CARLOS BORROMEO v. FAMILY CARE HOSPITAL BRION, J.
A medical professional has the duty to observe the standard of care and exercise the degree of skill, knowledge, and training ordinarily expected of other similarly trained medical professionals acting under the same circumstances.[18] A breach of the accepted standard of care constitutes negligence or malpractice and renders the defendant liable for the resulting injury to his patient.[19]
	GR No. 171127 2015-03-11	NOEL CASUMPANG v. NELSON CORTEJO BRION, J.
To successfully pursue a medical malpractice suit, the plaintiff (in this case, the deceased patient's heir) must prove that the doctor either failed to do what a reasonably prudent doctor would have done, or did what a reasonably prudent doctor would not have done; and the act or omission had caused injury to the patient.[34] The patient's heir/s bears the burden of proving his/her cause of action.
	GR No. 163879 2014-07-30	DR. ANTONIO P. CABUGAO v. PEOPLE PERALTA, J.
To be sure, whether or not a physician has committed an "inexcusable lack of precaution" in the treatment of his patient is to be determined according to the standard of care observed by other members of the profession in good standing under similar circumstances bearing in mind the advanced state of the profession at the time of treatment or the present state of medical science. In accepting a case, a doctor in effect represents that, having the needed training and skill possessed by physicians and surgeons practicing in the same field, he will employ such training, care and skill in the treatment of his patients. He, therefore, has a duty to use at least the same level of care that any other reasonably competent doctor would use to treat a condition under the same circumstances.[26] Sadly, Dr. Ynzon did not display that degree of care and precaution demanded by the circumstances.
	GR No. 167366 2012-09-26	DR. PEDRO DENNIS CERENO v. CA PEREZ, J.
The type of lawsuit which has been called medical malpractice or, more appropriately, medical negligence, is that type of claim which a victim has available to him or her to redress a wrong committed by a medical professional which has caused bodily harm. In order to successfully pursue such a claim, a patient must prove that a health care provider, in most cases a physician, either failed to do something which a reasonably prudent health care provider would have done, or that he or she did something that a reasonably prudent provider would not have done; and that the failure or action caused injury to the patient.[13] Stated otherwise, the complainant must prove: (1) that the health care provider, either by his act or omission, had been negligent, and (2) that such act or omission proximately caused the injury complained of.
	GR No. 158461 2012-08-22	DR. EDUARDO AQUINO v. CALAYAG ABAD, J.
To successfully mount a medical malpractice action, the plaintiff should establish four basic things: (1) duty; (2) breach; (3) injury; and (4) proximate causation.[23] The evidence should show that the physician or surgeon, either failed to do something which a reasonably prudent physician or surgeon would have done, or that he or she did something that a reasonably prudent physician or surgeon would not have done; and that the failure or action caused injury to the patient.[24]
	GR No. 165279 2011-06-07	DR. RUBI LI v. SPS. REYNALDO VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The type of lawsuit which has been called medical malpractice or, more appropriately, medical negligence, is that type of claim which a victim has available to him or her to redress a wrong committed by a medical professional which has caused bodily harm. In order to successfully pursue such a claim, a patient must prove that a health care provider, in most cases a physician, either failed to do something which a reasonably prudent health care provider would have done, or that he or she did something that a reasonably prudent provider would not have done; and that that failure or action caused injury to the patient.[51]
	GR No. 135715 2011-04-13	PRESIDENTIAL AD HOC FACT- FINDING COMMITTEE ON BEHEST LOANS v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO AS OMBUDSMAN PEREZ, J.
True, the Ombudsman is a constitutionally created body with constitutionally mandated independence. Despite this, however, the Ombudsman comes within the purview of the Court's power of judicial review[39] - a peculiar concept of Philippine Ombudsman, embodied in Article VIII, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution[40] - which serves as a safety net against its capricious and arbitrary acts.[41] Thus, in Garcia-Rueda v. Pascasio,[42] the Court held that "while the Ombudsman has the full discretion to determine whether or not a criminal case is to be filed, the Court is not precluded from reviewing the Ombudsman's action when there is grave abuse of discretion."[43] This is because, "while the Ombudsman enjoys, as it must, complete independence, it cannot and must not lose track of the law, which it is bound to uphold and obey."[44]
	GR No. 156337 2007-09-28	UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK v. ALBERTO T. LOOYUKO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
A preliminary investigation is essentially inquisitorial, and its function is merely to determine the existence of probable cause.[31] Probable cause has been defined as "the existence of such fact and circumstances as would excite the belief, in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the knowledge of the prosecution, that the person charged was guilty of the crime for which he was prosecuted."[32] The term does not mean actual and positive cause nor does it import absolute certainty.[33] It is merely based on opinion and reasonable belief.[34] Thus, a finding of probable cause does not require an inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction.[35] It is enough that it is believed that the act or omission complained of constitutes the offense charged.[36] Precisely, there is a trial for the reception of evidence of the prosecution in support of the charge.[37]
	GR NO. 166797 2007-07-10	JOSE M. GALARIO v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
While the Ombudsman has the full discretion to determine whether or not a criminal case should be filed, this Court is not precluded from reviewing the Ombudsman's action when there is an abuse of discretion, in which case Rule 65 of the Rules of Court may exceptionally be invoked pursuant to Section I, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution.[33] Finally, it bears emphasizing once again the extent of the powers of the Ombudsman in the fulfillment of its constitutional mandate as protector of the people. Article XI, Section 13 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, enumerates the powers, functions, and duties of the Office of the Ombudsman, among which is to:(1) Investigate on its own, or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public official, employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient. The Ombudsman Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6770) likewise provides:
	GR NO. 168512 2007-03-20	ORLANDO D. GARCIA v. RANIDA D. SALVADOR YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Negligence is the failure to observe for the protection of the interest of another person that degree of care, precaution and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand,[20] whereby such other person suffers injury. For health care providers, the test of the existence of negligence is: did the health care provider either fail to do something which a reasonably prudent health care provider would have done, or that he or she did something that a reasonably prudent health care provider would not have done; and that failure or action caused injury to the patient;[21] if yes, then he is guilty of negligence.
	GR NOS. 168830-31 2007-02-06	ERNESTO M. DE CHAVEZ v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Petitioners make mountain on the use of the words "liable for violation x x x" employed by the Ombudsman. A review of the specific powers of the Ombudsman under the Constitution, the laws and jurisprudential pronouncements is in order. Both the 1987 Constitution and the Ombudsman Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6770) empower the public respondent to investigate and prosecute on its own or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public official or employee, office or agency when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient.[22] By virtue of this power,[23] it may conduct a preliminary investigation for the mere purpose of determining whether there is a sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial.[24]
	GR NO. 126297 2007-01-31	PROFESSIONAL SERVICES v. NATIVIDAD SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
This is a clear case of medical malpractice or more appropriately, medical negligence. To successfully pursue this kind of case, a patient must only prove that a health care provider either failed to do something which a reasonably prudent health care provider would have done, or that he did something that a reasonably prudent provider would not have done; and that failure or action caused injury to the patient.[11] Simply put, the elements are duty, breach, injury and proximate causation. Dr, Ampil, as the lead surgeon, had the duty to remove all foreign objects, such as gauzes, from Natividad's body before closure of the incision. When he failed to do so, it was his duty to inform Natividad about it. Dr. Ampil breached both duties. Such breach caused injury to Natividad, necessitating her further examination by American doctors and another surgery. That Dr. Ampil's negligence is the proximate cause[12] of Natividad's injury could be traced from his act of closing the incision despite the information given by the attending nurses that two pieces of gauze were still missing. That they were later on extracted from Natividad's vagina established the causal link between Dr. Ampil's negligence and the injury. And what further aggravated such injury was his deliberate concealment of the missing gauzes from the knowledge of Natividad and her family.
	GR NOS. 169727-28 2006-08-18	BRIG. GEN. JOSE S. RAMISCAL v. SANDIGANBAYAN CALLEJO, SR., J.
As a rule, courts should not interfere with the Ombudsman's investigatory power, exercised through the Ombudsman Prosecutors, and the authority to determine the presence or absence of probable cause,[32] except when the finding is tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. In such case, the aggrieved party may file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.[33] Indeed, if the Ombudsman does not take essential facts into consideration in the determination of probable cause, there is abuse of discretion.[34] As we ruled in Mendoza-Arce v. Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas),[35] a writ of certiorari may issue in any of the following instances: When necessary to afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused;
	GR NO. 164664 2006-07-20	CARLOS C. FUENTES v. SANDIGANBAYAN CALLEJO, SR., J.
As a rule, courts should not interfere with the Ombudsman's investigatory power, exercised through the Special Prosecutor, and the authority to determine the presence or absence of probable cause, except when the finding is tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.[37] In such case, the aggrieved party may file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.[38] Indeed, if the Ombudsman does not take essential facts into consideration in the determination of probable cause, there is abuse of discretion.[39] As we ruled in Mendoza-Arce v. Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas),[40] a writ of certiorari may issue in any of the following instances: When necessary to afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused;
	GR No. 137448 2002-01-31	GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. BENGSON COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS DAVIDE JR., C.J.
There is "grave abuse of discretion" where "a power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility so patent and gross as to amount to evasion of positive duty or virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by, or in contemplation of law."[57]
	GR No. 142738 2001-12-14	DR. HONORATA BAYLON v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN PARDO, J.
As a general rule, this Court does not interfere with the Ombudsman's determination of the existence of probable cause.[49] However, this non-interference does not apply when there is grave abuse in the exercise of such discretion.[50] In such a situation, the petitioner may file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court.[51] There is "grave abuse of discretion" where "a power is exercised in an arbitrary, capricious, whimsical[52] or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility so patent and gross as to amount to evasion of positive duty or virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by, or in contemplation of law."[53]
	GR No. 138042 2001-02-28	JOSEFINA v. GIL PARDO, J.
Petitioners' only recourse in this appeal is to prove that the Court of Appeals exercised its power "in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility so patent and gross as to amount to evasion of positive duty or virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by, or in contemplation of law."[54] This they failed to do.[55]

LEONILA GARCIA-RUEDA v. WILFREDO L. PASCASIO