Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Board of Medicine
G.R. No. 177407, February 9, 2011
Justice Nachura
Facts:
1.
Due to her lumbar pains, private respondent Editha Sioson went to Rizal
Medical Center (RMC) for check-up on February 1995.
2.
Sometime in 1999, due to the same problem, she was referred to Dr. Pedro
Lantin III of RMC who, accordingly, ordered several diagnostic laboratory tests
. She underwent kidney operation after the tests revealed that her left kidney i
s non-functioning and non-visualizing.
3.
Private respondent s husband Romeo Sioson then filed a complaint for gross
negligence and/or incompetence before the Board of Medicine for the removal of
Editha's fully functional right kidney, instead of the left, against the doctors
who allegedly participated in the kidney operation, namely: Dr. Judd dela Vega,
Dr. Pedro Lantin, III, Dr. Gerardo Antonio Florendo and petitioner Rico Rommel
Atienza.
4.
After Romeo Sioson presented his evidence, Editha filed her formal offer
of documentary evidence, which consisted of certified photocopies of X-Ray requ
est forms where interpretation of the ultrasound results were written, for the p
urpose of proving that her kidneys were both in their proper anatomical location
s at the time she was operated.
5.
Petitioner filed his comments/objections to Editha's formal offer of exh
ibits, alleging that said exhibits are inadmissible because the same are mere ph
otocopies, not properly identified and authenticated, intended to establish matt
ers which are hearsay, and incompetent to prove the purpose for which they are o
ffered.
6.
The formal offer of documentary exhibits of private respondent was admit
ted by the BOM. Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the Order, which was den
ied on the ground that BOM should first admit the evidence being offered so that
it can determine its probative value when it decides the case, and later on det
ermine whether the evidence is relevant or not.
7.
Disagreeing with the BOM, Atienza filed a petition for certiorari with t
he CA. The CA dismissed the petition for certiorari for lack of merit. Hence, th
e present petition for review on certiorari.
Issue:
1.