Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

REYES v. SISTERS OF MERCY HOSPITAL

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 161151 2014-03-24	BJDC CONSTRUCTION v. NENA E. LANUZO BERSAMIN, J.
The Court has warned in Reyes v. Sisters of Mercy Hospital,[31] however, that "res ipsa loquitur is not a rigid or ordinary doctrine to be perfunctorily used but a rule to be cautiously applied, depending upon the circumstances of each case."
	GR No. 192123 2014-03-10	DR. FERNANDO P. SOLIDUM v. PEOPLE BERSAMIN, J.
In order to allow resort to the doctrine, therefore, the following essential requisites must first be satisfied, to wit: (1) the accident was of a kind that does not ordinarily occur unless someone is negligent; (2) the instrumentality or agency that caused the injury was under the exclusive control of the person charged; and (3) the injury suffered must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution of the person injured.[29]
	GR No. 187926 2012-02-15	DR. EMMANUEL JARCIA v. PEOPLE MENDOZA, J.
The requisites for the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur are: (1) the accident was of a kind which does not ordinarily occur unless someone is negligent; (2) the instrumentality or agency which caused the injury was under the exclusive control of the person in charge; and (3) the injury suffered must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution of the person injured.[12]
	GR No. 176675 2010-09-15	SPS. ALFREDO BONTILAO AND SHERLINA BONTILAO v. DR. CARLOS GERONA VILLARAMA, JR., J.
However, res ipsa loquitur is not a rigid or ordinary doctrine to be perfunctorily used but a rule to be cautiously applied, depending upon the circumstances of each case.[13] In malpractice cases, the doctrine is generally restricted to situations where a layman is able to say, as a matter of common knowledge and observation, that the consequences of professional care were not as such as would ordinarily have followed if due care had been exercised. In other words, as held in Ramos v. Court of Appeals,[14] the real question is whether or not in the process of the operation, any extraordinary incident or unusual event outside of the routine performance occurred which is beyond the regular scope of professional activity in such operations, and which, if unexplained, would themselves reasonably speak to the average man as the negligent cause or causes of the untoward consequence.
	GR No. 159132 2008-12-18	FE CAYAO-LASAM v. SPS. CLARO AND EDITHA RAMOLETE AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Medical malpractice is a particular form of negligence which consists in the failure of a physician or surgeon to apply to his practice of medicine that degree of care and skill which is ordinarily employed by the profession generally, under similar conditions, and in like surrounding circumstances.[42] In order to successfully pursue such a claim, a patient must prove that the physician or surgeon either failed to do something which a reasonably prudent physician or surgeon would not have done, and that the failure or action caused injury to the patient.[43]
	GR No. 158996 2008-11-14	SPS. FREDELICTO FLORES AND FELICISIMA FLORES v. PINEDA BRION, J.
A medical negligence case is a type of claim to redress a wrong committed by a medical professional, that has caused bodily harm to or the death of a patient. There are four elements involved in a medical negligence case, namely: duty, breach, injury, and proximate causation.[14]
	GR No. 158996 2008-11-14	SPS. FREDELICTO FLORES AND FELICISIMA FLORES v. PINEDA BRION, J.
As in any civil action, the burden to prove the existence of the necessary elements rests with the plaintiff.[17] To successfully pursue a claim, the plaintiff must prove by preponderance of evidence that, one, the physician 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 two, the failure or action caused injury to the patient.[18] Expert testimony is therefore essential since the factual issue of whether a physician or surgeon has exercised the requisite degree of skill and care in the treatment of his patient is generally a matter of expert opinion.[19]
	GR No. 155604 2007-11-22	COLLEGE ASSURANCE PLAN v. BELFRANLT DEVELOPMENT INC. AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Even without the testimony of Fireman Sitchon and the documents he prepared, the finding of the RTC and CA on the negligence of petitioners cannot be overturned by petitioners' bare denial. The CA correctly applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur under which expert testimony may be dispensed with[35] to sustain an allegation of negligence if the following requisites obtain: a) the accident is of a kind which does not ordinarily occur unless someone is negligent; b) the cause of the injury was under the exclusive control of the person in charge and c) the injury suffered must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the person injured.[36] The fire that damaged Belfranlt Building was not a spontaneous natural occurrence but the outcome of a human act or omission. It originated in the store room which petitioners had possession and control of. Respondent had no hand in the incident. Hence, the convergence of these facts and circumstances speaks for itself: petitioners alone having knowledge of the cause of the fire or the best opportunity to ascertain it, and respondent having no means to find out for itself, it is sufficient for the latter to merely allege that the cause of the fire was the negligence of the former and to rely on the occurrence of the fire as proof of such negligence.[37] It was all up to petitioners to dispel such inference of negligence, but their bare denial only left the matter unanswered.
	GR NO. 147746 2005-10-25	PERLA COMPANIA DE SEGUROS v. SPS. GAUDENCIO SARANGAYA III AND PRIMITIVA B. SARANGAYA CORONA, J.
3) the injury suffered must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the person injured.[17]