Dr. Victoria Batiquin and Allan Batiquin v.

CA
G.R. No. 118231
July 5, 1996

DAVIDE, JR.:

STATEMENTS OF FACTS:
Mrs. Villegas (Villegas) had submitted herself to Dr. Victoria Batiquin (Batiquin) for
prenatal care as Dr. Batiquins private patient. She was then admitted to for a caesarian section
with Dr. Batiquin as the surgeon and assisted by Dr. Doris Teresity Sy (Sy), resident physician,
Nurse Arlene DIones (Diones), and some student nurses. The operation lasted for 45 mins and
was successful in delivering the 1st child of Mrs. Villegas. Dr. Batiquin was very accommodating
with Mrs. Villegas post operation by frequently visiting her.
After leaving the hospital Mrs. Villegas was experiencing abdominal pains and thus
consulted with Dr. Batiqin, who then prescribed medication to her. The abdominal pains
continued till it became unbearable, she then went and consulted with Dr. Ma. Salud Kho (Kho).
Dr. Kho found Mrs. Villegas to be feverish and pale and was breathing fast. Upon examination
she found that Mrs. Villegas had an infection on her ovaries. During the operation Dr. Kho found
a rubber object behind the uterus of Mrs. Villegas which caused the infection and abdominal
pains. Mrs. Villegas proceeded for a 2nd operation and became well thereafter under the care of
Dr. Kho. Mrs. Villegas lost her ovaries and can no longer bear children due to the necessity to
remove the same due to the infection.

STATEMENTS OF THE CASE:

The RTC of Negros Oriental did not give weight to Dr. Khos testimony that she had
found the rubber gloves personally and assumed that she merely relied upon the multiple
medical records presented. Furthermore, there was a conflicting claim by Dr. Kho that the rubber
glove was missing or that it was sent to Cebu. Regardless, the glove was not presented in court
as it was missing. Thus the RTC ruled in favor of Dr. Batiquin who alleged in the negative defense
that there was no rubber glove, which was corroborated by Sy and Diones and the student nurses.
The CA however reversed the decision giving credence to the positive defense of Dr. Kho that
she had personal knowledge when the rubbery object was removed.

ISSUE:
Whether Dr. Batiquin is guilty of negligence

RULING:
YES, The doctrine of [r]es ipsa loquitur as a rule of evidence is peculiar to the law of
negligence which recognizes that prima facie negligence may be established without direct
proof and furnishes a substitute for specific proof of negligence. The doctrine is not a rule of
substantive law, but merely a mode of proof or a mere procedural convenience. The rule, when
applicable to the facts and circumstances of a particular case, is not intended to and does not
dispense with the requirement of proof of culpable negligence on the party charged. It merely
determines and regulates what shall be prima facie evidence thereof and facilitates the burden
of plaintiff of proving a breach of the duty of due care. The doctrine can be invoked when and
only when, under the circumstances involved, direct evidence is absent and not readily available.
 In the instant case, all the requisites for recourse to the doctrine are present. First, the
entire proceedings of the cesarean section were under the exclusive control of Dr. Batiquin. In
this light, the private respondents were bereft of direct evidence as to the actual culprit or the
exact cause of the foreign object finding its way into private respondent Villegas' body, which,
needless to say, does not occur unless through the intervention of negligence. Second, since
aside from the cesarean section, private respondent Villegas underwent no other operation
which could have caused the offending piece of rubber to appear in her uterus, it stands to
reason that such could only have been a by-product of the cesarean section performed by Dr.
Batiquin. The petitioners, in this regard, failed to overcome the presumption of negligence
arising from resort to the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Dr. Batiquin is therefore liable for
negligently leaving behind a piece of rubber in private respondent Villegas' abdomen and for all
the adverse effects thereof.