Cantre vs Sps.

Go
G.R. No. 160889
April 27, 2007

QUISUMBING, J.:

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Dr. Milagros L. Cantre (Cantre) is a specialist in Obstetrics and Gynecology at the Dr. Jesus
Delgado Memorial Hospital (JDMH). She was the attending physician of respondent Nora S. Go
(Nora), who was admitted at the said hospital.
Nora gave birth to her 4th baby boy, however there was bleeding in the womb due to some
parts of the placenta that was not expelled during delivery. She went into shock and Dr. Cantre
performed various medical procedure to stop the bleeding and restore her blood pressure. Dr.
Cantre ordered that the droplight to warm Nora and the baby.
After the operation, John David Go (JD) saw a gaping wound by Noras left arm and inquired
the nurses the cause and they responded that it was a burn. JD then requested for an investigation
and Dr. Ranierio Abad (Abad), the medical director of the hospital, said it was due to blood
pressure cuff. Not satisfied, they went to the NBI to have her checked and Dr. Floresto Arizala
(Arizala) testified that it was a burn due to the droplight when placed near the skin for 10mins.
Nora got plastic surgery twice to remedy the wound, however it left her scarred and the
scar still ached from time to time and hurt with the slightest touch. The cost of the skin grafting was
completely shouldered by the hospital.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE:

Sps. Go filed a complaint for damages against Dr. Abad and the hospital where the RTC ruled
in their favor where Dr. Abad and the hospital are jointly and severally liable. The respondents
appealed before the CA which affiremed the decision of the RTC, with slight modification to the
award of damages.

ISSUE:
Whether Dr. Cantre is liable for the injury suffered by Nora Go.

RULING:
YES, negligence exists and is proven, it automatically gives the injured a right to reparation
for the damage caused.
In cases involving medical negligence, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur allows the mere existence of
an injury to justify a presumption of negligence on the part of the person who controls the
instrument causing the injury, provided that the following requisites concur:

1. The accident is of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someones negligence;
3
- wound not an ordinary occurrence in the act of delivering a baby; could not have happened
unless negligence is set in somewhere.
2. It is caused by an instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant or defendants;
- It doesnt matter WON the injury was caused by the droplight or by the blood pressure
cuff, since both are within the exclusive control of the physician in charge [Dr. Cantre]
under the captain of the ship doctrine [surgeon in charge of an operation is held liable for
his assistants negligence during the time when they are under the surgeons control].

3. The possibility of contributing conduct which would make the plaintiff responsible is eliminated.
- Wound could only be caused by something external to and outside the control of Nora
since she was unconscious while in hypervolemic shock.

Petitioners defense that Noras wound was caused not by the droplight but by the constant
taking of her blood pressure, even if the latter was necessary given her condition, does not absolve
her from liability. As testified to by the medico-legal officer, Dr. Arizala, Jr., the medical practice is
to deflate the blood pressure cuff immediately after each use. Otherwise, the inflated band can
cause injury to the patient similar to what could have happened in this case. Thus, if Noras wound
was caused by the blood pressure cuff, then the taking of Noras blood pressure must have been
done so negligently as to have inflicted a gaping wound on her arm, for which petitioner cannot
escape liability under the "captain of the ship" doctrine.

NOTES:
- NCC 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or
negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done.
- NCC 2217. Moral damages include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety,
besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar
injury. Though incapable of pecuniary computation, moral damages may be recovered if
they are the proximate result of the defendants wrongful act or omission.