You are on page 1of 1

BATIQUIN V CA (Villegas) 258 SCRA 334 DAVIDE; July 5, 1996 NATURE: Petition for review of the decision of the

Court of Appeals FACTS - Mrs. Villegas submitted to Dr. Batiquin for prenatal care as the latter's private patient sometime before September 21,1988. In the morning of September 21, 1988 Dr. Batiquin, along with other physicians and nurses, performed a caesarean operation on Mrs. Villegas and successfully delivered the latters baby. After leaving the hospital, Mrs. Villegas began to suffer abdominal pains and complained of being feverish. She also gradually lost her appetite, so she consulted Dr. Batiquin at the latter's polyclinic who prescribed for her certain medicines. However, the pains still kept recurring. She then consulted Dr.Ma. Salud Kho. After examining her, Dr Kho suggested that Mrs.Villegas submit to another surgery.- When Dr. Kho opened the abdomen of Mrs. Villegas she found whitish-yellow discharge inside, an ovarian cyst on each of the left and right ovaries which gave out pus, dirt and pus behind the uterus, and a piece of rubber material on the right side of the uterus, embedded on the ovarian cyst. The piece of rubber appeared to be a part of a rubber glove. This was the cause of all of the infection of the ovaries and consequently of all the discomfort suffered by Mrs. Villegas. The piece of rubber allegedly found was not presented in court, and Dr. Kho testified that she sent it to a pathologist in Cebu City for examination. Aside from Dr. Kho's testimony, the evidence which mentioned the piece of rubber are a Medical Certificate, a Progress Record, an Anaesthesia Record, a Nurse's Record, and a Physician's Discharge Summary. The trial court, however, regarded these documentary evidence as mere hearsay, "there being no showing that the person or persons who prepared them are deceased or unable to testify on the facts therein stated- There was also doubts as to the whereabouts of the piece of rubber, as 2 versions arose from Dr. Khos testimony: 1) that it was sent to the Pathologist in Cebu as testified to in Court by Dr. Kho and (2) that Dr. Kho threw it away as told by her to Defendant. The failure of the Plaintiffs to reconcile these two different versions served only to weaken their claim against Defendant Batiquin. The trial court ruled in favor of the defendants. The CA reversed the decision. ISSUES Procedural: WON the court can review questions of fact Substantive: WON Dr. Batiquin is liable HELD Procedural: YES - While the rule is that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari , there are exceptions, among which are when the factual findings of the trial court and the appellate court conflict, when the appealed decision is clearly contradicted by the evidence on record, or when the appellate court misapprehended the facts Substantive - The focal point of the appeal is Dr. Khos testimony. There were inconsistencies within her own testimony, which led to the different decision of the RTC and CA. The CA was correct in saying that the trial court erred when it isolated the disputed portion of Dr. Khos testimony and did not consider it with other portions of Dr. Khos testimony. Also, the phrase relied upon by the trial court does not negate the fact that Dr. Kho saw a piece of rubber in private respondent Villegas' abdomen, and that she sent it to a laboratory and then to Cebu City for examination by a pathologist. Furthermore, Dr. Kho's knowledge of the piece of rubber could not be based on other than first hand knowledge for, as she asserted before the trial court.

You might also like