EVID: Rico Rommel Atienza

vs.
Board of Medicine and Editha Sioson

G.R. No. 177407

February 9. 2011

Facts:
Private respondent went to Rizal Medical Center to submit for a check up due
to her lumbar pains. Her diagnostic laboratory test results revealed that her
right kidney was normal while her left kidney was non-functioning and nonvisualizing. Thereafter, she underwent kidney operation under the care of the
four physicians namely: Dr. Judd dela Vega, Dr. Pedro Lantin III, Dr. Gerardo
Antonio and petitioner Dr. Rico Rommel Atienza.

Unfortnately, the said physicians removed her fully functioning right kidney
instead of the left non-functioning and non-visualizing kidney. Due to their
gross negligence and incompetence, private respondent filed a complaint
against the four doctors before the Board of Medicine. Private respondent
therein offered four certified photocopies as her documentary evidence to
prove that her kidneys were both in their proper anatomical locations at the
time that she was operated.
The Board of Medicine admitted the formal offer despite the objection of
herein petitioner. Petitioner contends that the documentary evidence offered
were inadmissible as it were incompetent. Further, he alleged that the same
documents were not properly identified and authenticated, violate the best
evidence rule and his substantive rights, and are completely hearsay.
ISSUE: WON the courtcan take judicial notice of the anatomial location of the
kidney of private respondent
RULING: The fact sought to be established by the admission of Edithas
exhibits, that her kidneys were both in their proper anatomical locations at
the time of her operation, need not be proved as it is covered by mandatory
judicial notice.[11]
Unquestionably, the rules of evidence are merely the means for ascertaining

the truth respecting a matter of fact.[12] Thus, they likewise provide for some
facts which are established and need not be proved, such as those covered
by judicial notice, both mandatory and discretionary.[13] Laws of nature
involving the physical sciences, specifically biology,[14] include the structural
make-up and composition of living things such as human beings. In this case,
we may take judicial notice that Edithas kidneys before, and at the time of,
her operation, as with most human beings, were in their proper anatomical
locations.
Finally, these exhibits do not constitute hearsay evidence of the anatomical
locations of Edithas kidneys. To further drive home the point, the anatomical
positions, whether left or right, of Edithas kidneys, and the removal of one or
both, may still be established through a belated ultrasound or x-ray of her
abdominal area.