KHERVY B.

REYES
ATTY. DELSON

STUDENT NO. 2012400251

CIVIL REVIEW 1

4C

ARTICLE 19-21
ALANO VS. MAGUD-LOGMAO
GR. NO. 175540, April 17, 2014
Principle: To be entitled to damages, negligence must be proven.
FACTS: Amelito Logmao was brought to the East Avenue Medical Center (EAMC) by
sidewalk vendors who allegedly saw him fall from the overpass in Cubao, Quezon City.
There, his patients data sheet identified him as Angelito Lugmoso. Considering that his
deterioration progressively deteriorated, and no vacancy was available at the ICU of
EAMC, Logmao/Lugmoso was transferred to NKI. His name was recorded as Angelito
Lugmose at the NKI. There being no relatives around, Jennifer, the transplant
coordinator, was instructed to locate his family by enlisting the assistance of the police
and the media. Dr. Ona, the chairman of the Department of Surgery, observing the
severity of the brain injury of Angelito Lugmoso/Logmao, requested the Laboratory
Section to conduct cross-matching and tissue typing, so that if Angelito expires despite
the necessary medical care and management, and found a suitable organ donor,
provided his family would consent to it, his organs could be detached and transplanted
promptly to a compatible beneficiary. Jennifer secured the patient data of Agelito from
EAMC, where he was identified as Angelito Lugmoso of Boni Avenue, Mandaluyong and
contacted several television and radio stations for the purpose of locating the family of
Lugmoso. She sought the assistance of the PNP to locate the whereabouts of Angelitos
family. As proof, the radio and tv stations she contacted, as well as the pertinent police
station, issued Certifications attesting to her effort to locate Angelitos family.
Angelito was eventually pronounced dead, hence Dr. Ona set in motion the removal of
organs of Angelito for organ transplantation. He sought permission from the Executive
Director, Dr. Filoteo Alano, who issued a Memorandum approving the transplant as long
as all the requisite requirements had been complied with and the NBI had been
informed of the planned transplant.
On March 11, 1988, the NKI issued a press release announcing the successful organ
transplant. A cousin of Angelito heard on the radio that the donor was a certain Angelitlo
Lugmoso who is now at Funeraria Oro. Sensing a vague resemblance to Angelito
Logmaos name, she reported it to his mother, Zenaida Logmao. When they went to the
Furearia Oro to see the remains, it was there that they discovered the remains of
Angelito in a cheap casket. Previously, Arnelitos sister Arlen reported on March 3, 1988
that her brother, Arnelito did not return home after seeing a movie in Cubao.
Because of this discovery, Zenaida filed a complaint for damages. Only Dr. Filoteo
Albano was held liable for damages by the RTC. On appeal, the Court of Appeals
affirmed the decision with modification, by reducing the award of moral and exemplary
damages, as well as attorneys fees.

KHERVY B. REYES
ATTY. DELSON

STUDENT NO. 2012400251

CIVIL REVIEW 1

4C

ISSUE: Whether respondent's sufferings were brought about by petitioner's alleged

negligence in granting authorization for the removal or retrieval of the internal organs
of respondent's son who had been declared brain dead.
HELD: WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals,
dated March 31, 2006, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The complaint against petitioner
is hereby DISMISSED. Petitioner Doctor is not negligent. Petitioner gave authorization
for the removal of some of the internal organs to be transplanted to other patients, he
did so in accordance with the letter of the law, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 349, as amended
by Presidential Decree (P.D.) 856, i.e., giving his subordinates instructions to exert all
reasonable efforts to locate the relatives or next of kin of respondent's
son. Announcements were made through radio and television, the assistance of police
authorities was sought, and the NBI Medico-Legal Section was notified. There can be
no cavil that petitioner employed reasonable means to disseminate notifications
intended to reach the relatives of the deceased.
It is not petitioners fault if respondent failed to immediately receive notice of her son's
death because the notices did not properly state the name or identity of the deceased.
The lower courts found that it was the EAMC, who had the opportunity to ascertain the
name of the deceased, who recorded the wrong information regarding the deceased's
identity to NKI. The NKI could not have obtained the information about his name from
the patient, because as found by the lower courts, the deceased was already
unconscious by the time he was brought to the NKI.
Finding petitioner liable for damages is improper. It should be emphasized that
the internal organs of the deceased were removed only after he had been declared
brain dead; thus, the emotional pain suffered by respondent due to the death of her son
cannot in any way be attributed to petitioner.