G.R. No. 172406. October 11, 2007.*
CONCEPCION ILAO-ORETA, petitioner, vs. SPOUSES EVA MARIE and BENEDICTO NOEL RONQUILLO, respondents.
The Parties:
DR. CONCEPCION ILAO-ORETA, defendant-petitioner
ST. LUKE’S MEDICAL CENTER, co-defendant
SPOUSES EVA MARIE and BENEDICTO NOEL RONQUILLO, plaintiff-respondents
Facts of the Case:
1. Spouses Eva Marie Ronquillo and Noel Benedicto Ronquillo had not been blessed with a child despite several years of marriage.
2. The spouses thus consulted Dr. Concepcion Ilao-Oreta, an obstetrician- gynecologist- consultant at the St. Luke's Medical Center where she was the chief of the Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility Section.
3. Upon Dr. Ilao-Oreta's advice, Eva Marie agreed to undergo a laparoscopic procedure whereby a laparascope would be inserted through the patient's abdominal wall to get a direct view of her internal reproductive organ in order to determine the real cause of her infertility.
4. The procedure was scheduled on April 5, 1999 at 2:00 p.m., to be performed by Dr. Ilao-Oreta. At around 7:00 a.m. of said date, Eva Marie, accompanied by her husband Noel, checked in at the St. Luke's Medical Center and underwent pre-operative procedures including the administration of intravenous fluid and enema.
5. Dr. Ilao-Oreta did not arrive at the scheduled time for the procedure, however, and no prior notice of its cancellation was received. It turned out that the doctor was on a return flight from Hawaii to, and arrived at 10:00 p.m. of April 5, 1999 in Manila.
The Complaint:
The Ronquillo spouses filed a complaint against Dr. Ilao-Oreta and the St. Luke's Medical Center for breach of professional and service contract and for damages before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Batangas City.
The Prayer:
award of actual damages including alleged loss of income of Noel while accompanying his wife to the hospital
moral damages
exemplary damages
the costs of litigation
attorney's fees
and other available reliefs and remedies
Defense of Dr. Ilao-Oreta
She went on a honeymoon to Hawaii and was scheduled to leave Hawaii at 3:00 p.m. of April 4, 1999 for Manila.
Aware that her trip from Hawaii to Manila would take about 12 hours, inclusive of a stop-over at the Narita Airport in Japan, she estimated that she would arrive in Manila in the early morning of April 5, 1999.
She thus believed in utmost good faith that she would be back in Manila in time for the scheduled conduct of the laparoscopic procedure.
She failed to consider the time difference between Hawaii and the Philippines, however.
Defense of St. Luke’s Medical Center
St. Luke's Medical Center contended that the spouses have no cause of action against it since it performed the pre-operative procedures without delay, and any cause of action they have would be against Dr. Ilao-Oreta.
Decision of the RTC
The failure of Dr. Ilao-Oreta to arrive on time was not intentional.
Awarded only actual damages in the total amount of Php 9,939 and costs of suit
No adequate proof that Noel had been deprived of any job contract while attending to his wife in the hospital
The spouses appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Decision of the Court of Appeals
Dr. Ilao-Oreta is grossly negligent
Amount of actual damages (for which both defendants are jointly and severally liable), is increased to Php 16,069.40
Dr. Ilao-Oreta is also held liable to pay:
Php 50,000.00 as moral damages (gross negligence)
Php 25,000.00 as exemplary damages (gross negligence)
Php 20,000.00 as attorney's fees (the spouses “were compelled to litigate and incur expenses to protect their interest”)
Dr. Ilao-Oreta filed a Petition for Review before the Supreme Court.
Issues:
1. Whether or not the CA erred in finding Dr. Ilao-Oreta to have acted with gross negligence and awarding moral damages to the Spouses.
2. Whether or not the Spouses are entitled to recover exemplary damages.
3. Whether or not the Spouses are entitled to recover attorney’s fees.
4. Whether or not the CA erred in increasing the award of actual damages in favor of the Spouses.
Ruling:
1. On the Award of Moral Damages
Yes, the CA erred; the spouses are not entitled to recover moral damages, Dr. Ilao-Oreta's negligence not being gross.
Dr. Ilao-Oreta, who had traveled more than twice to the United States where she obtained a fellowship in Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility was indeed negligent when she scheduled to perform professional service at 2:00 p.m. on April 5, 1999 without considering the time difference between the Philippines and Hawaii.
The doctor's act did not, however, reflect gross negligence.
"Gross negligence" implies a want or absence of or failure to exercise slight care or diligence, or the entire absence of care. It evinces a thoughtless disregard of consequences without exerting any effort to avoid them. It is characterized by want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally with a conscious indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may be affected.
Firstly, these acts of the doctor reflect an earnest intention to perform the procedure on the day and time scheduled.
Dr. Ilao-Oreta left an admitting order with her secretary for one of the spouses to pick up, apprised Eva Marie of the necessary preparations for the procedure, and instructed the hospital staff to perform pre-operative treatments.
Secondly,
On realizing that she missed the scheduled procedure, Dr. Ilao-Oreta, upon arrival in Manila, immediately sought to rectify the same by calling up the spouses to set another schedule.
Thirdly,
Although Dr. Ilao-Oreta failed to take into consideration the time difference between the Philippines and Hawaii, the situation then did not present any clear and apparent harm or injury that even a careless person may perceive.
- Dr. Ilao-Oreta had just gotten married and was preparing for her honeymoon, and it is of common human knowledge that excitement attends its preparations. Her negligence could then be partly attributed to human frailty which rules out its characterization as gross.
2. On the Award of Exemplary Damages
No, the spouses are not entitled to recover exemplary damages in the absence of a showing that Dr. Ilao-Oreta acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or malevolent manner.
3. On the Award of Attorney’s Fees
No, the spouses are not entitled to recover attorney’s fees. The records show that they did not exert enough efforts to settle the matter before going to court. The spouses did not demand anything or write to Dr. Ilao-Oreta.
4. On the Award of Actual Damages
Yes, the CA erred in increasing the award of actual damages.
The award of actual damages is reduced to Php 2,288.70, representing the net hospital charges (the gross hospital charges of Php 2,416.50 less the unused medicine in the amount of Php 127.80) as substantiated by the hospital’s billing statement.
Basis is Article 2201 of the Civil Code:
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The decision appealed from is MODIFIED in that
1) the award to respondents-spouses Noel and Eva Marie Ronquillo of actual damages is REDUCED to P2,288.70, to bear interest at a rate of 6% per annum from the time of the filing of the complaint on May 18, 1999 and, upon finality of this judgment, at the rate of 12% per annum until satisfaction; and
2. The award of moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees is DELETED.
SO ORDERED.
No comments:
Post a Comment