Cereno vs. Court of Appeals
Cereno vs. Court of Appeals
Cereno vs. Court of Appeals
At 10:30 P.M., Raymond was wheeled inside the operating room. During that The trial court also held that the non-availability of Dr. Tatad after the
time, the hospital surgeons, Drs. Zafe and Cereno (herein petitioners), were operation on Maluluy-on was not a sufficient excuse for the petitioners to not
busy operating on gunshot victim Charles Maluluy-on. Assisting them in the immediately operate on Raymond.
said operation was Dr. Rosalina Tatad (Dr. Tatad), who was the only senior
anesthesiologist on duty at BRMC that night. Just before the operation on Lastly, the trial court faulted petitioners for the delay in the transfusion of
Maluluy-on was finished, another emergency case involving Lilia Aguila, a blood on Raymond.
woman who was giving birth to triplets, was brought to the operating room.
CA: On appeal, the CA affirmed in toto the judgment rendered by the RTC
At 10:59 P.M., the operation on Charles Maluluy-on was finished. By that finding petitioners guilty of gross negligence in the performance of their duties
time, however, Dr. Tatad was already working with the obstetricians who will and awarding damages to private respondents.
perform surgery on Lilia Aguila. There being no other available Issue: Whether or not petitioners Drs. Zafe and Cereno were grossly
anesthesiologist to assist them, Drs. Zafe and Cereno decided to defer the negligent in the performance of their duties.
operation on Raymond. Drs. Zafe and Cereno, in the meantime, proceeded Held: NO. The type of lawsuit which has been called medical malpractice or,
to examine Raymond and they found that the latter’s blood pressure was more appropriately, medical negligence, is that type of claim which a victim
normal and "nothing in him was significant." 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
At 11:15 P.M., Raymond’s relatives returned to the BRMC with a bag such a claim, a patient must prove that a health care provider, in most
containing the requested 500 cc type "O" blood. They handed over the bag cases a physician, either failed to do something which a reasonably
prudent health care provider would have done, or that he or she did it was petitioners’ fault that caused the injury. Their cause stands on the mere
something that a reasonably prudent provider would not have done; and assumption that Raymond’s life would have been saved had petitioner
that the failure or action caused injury to the patient. Stated otherwise, surgeons immediately operated on him; had the blood been cross-matched
the complainant must prove: (1) that the health care provider, either by his immediately and had the blood been transfused immediately. There was,
act or omission, had been negligent, and (2) that such act or omission however, no proof presented that Raymond’s life would have been saved had
proximately caused the injury complained of. those things been done. Those are mere assumptions and cannot guarantee
their desired result. Such cannot be made basis of a decision in this case,
Given that Dr. Tatad was already engaged in another urgent operation and especially considering that the name, reputation and career of petitioners are
that Raymond was not showing any symptom of suffering from major blood at stake.
loss requiring an immediate operation, We find it reasonable that petitioners
decided to wait for Dr. Tatad to finish her surgery and not to call the standby It was noted that Raymond, who was a victim of a stabbing incident, had
anesthesiologist anymore. There is, after all, no evidence that shows that a multiple wounds when brought to the hospital. Upon opening of his thoracic
prudent surgeon faced with similar circumstances would decide otherwise. cavity, it was discovered that there was gross bleeding inside the body. Thus,
the need for petitioners to control first what was causing the bleeding.
Another ground relied upon by the trial court in holding petitioners negligent
was their failure to immediately transfuse blood on Raymond. Such failure In the case of Dr. Cruz v. CA, it was held that "[d]octors are protected by a
allegedly led to the eventual death of Raymond through "hypovolemic shock." special law. They are not guarantors of care. They do not even warrant a
Again, such is a mistaken conclusion. good result. They are not insurers against mishaps or unusual
consequences. Furthermore, they are not liable for honest mistake of
First, the alleged delay in the cross-matching of the blood, if there was any, judgment…"
cannot be attributed as the fault of the petitioners. The petitioners were never DISPOSITIVE PORTION: IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, the instant
shown to be responsible for such delay. It is highly unreasonable and the Petition for Review on Certiorari is hereby GRANTED. The Court of Appeals
height of injustice if petitioners were to be sanctioned for lapses in procedure decision is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. No costs.
that does not fall within their duties and beyond their control. Case Digest: Garcia, A.R.G.
In medical negligence cases, it is settled that the complainant has the burden
of establishing breach of duty on the part of the doctors or surgeons. It must
be proven that such breach of duty has a causal connection to the resulting
death of the patient. A verdict in malpractice action cannot be based on
speculation or conjecture. Causation must be proven within a reasonable
medical probability based upon competent expert testimony.
The parents of Raymond failed in this respect. Aside from their failure to
prove negligence on the part of the petitioners, they also failed to prove that
Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.
Alternative Proxies: