Topic: QUASI-DELICT (Article 2176)

Title: LUCAS vs. TUAÑO

Citation: G.R. 178763, April 21, 2009

FACTS:

The petitioners, Peter Lucas and his family, is suing respondent, Dr. Prospero Ma. C. Tuaño, for
damages due to medical malpractice on the grounds that Tuaño was negligent in treating Lucas’
conjunctivitis or “sore eyes” which led to glaucoma which in turn made him irritable and unable to
support his family. Lucas consulted Tuaño when he had severe pain in his right eye to which the
respondent performed an ocular routine examination where he diagnosed Lucas to be suffering
conjunctivitis or “sore eyes” which developed Epidemic Kerato Conjunctivitis (EKC), a viral
infection to which Tuaño prescribed a steroid-based eye drop called Maxitrol which Lucas was
using before. Later on, his wife Fatima found out from the accompanying literature of the medicine
that prolonged use of steroid-based medication can result to glaucoma. Lucas’s right eye pain
reduced for a while but later on returned and it became severe that Tuaño referred him to another
ophthalmologist, Dr. Manuel B. Agulto, for a second opinion to which Dr. Maniel Agulto wrote a
letter to Tuaño stating the Lucas sustained significant glaucoma damage.

The Regional Trial Court denied the petitioners’ claim for damages due to insufficient evidence
proving Tuaño’s medical malpractice in treating Lucas because they failed to present a medical
expert that could support their claim that what Tuaño did was indeed medical malpractice.
Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals to which the court affirmed the Regional Trial Court’s
decision. Hence, the petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the respondent, Dr. Prospero C. Tuaño, is guilty of medical malpractice.

HELD:

NO, Dr. Tuaño, is not guilty of medical malpractice.

For lack of specific law geared towards the type of negligence committed by members of the
medical profession, such claim for damages is almost always anchored on the alleged violation
of Article 2176 of the Civil Code, which states that:
“Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another there being fault or negligence, is
obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing
contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions
of this Chapter.”

In medical negligence cases, also called medical malpractice suits, there exist a physician-patient
relationship between the doctor and the victim. But just like any other proceeding for damages,
four essential (4) elements i.e., (1) duty; (2) breach; (3) injury; and (4) proximate causation, must
be established by the plaintiff/s. All the four (4) elements must co-exist in order to find the
physician negligent and, thus, liable for damages.
The onus probandi was on the patient to establish before the trial court that the physicians ignored
standard medical procedure, prescribed and administered medication with recklessness and
exhibited an absence of the competence and skills expected of general practitioners similarly
situated. Further, SC emphasizes that in order for medical malpractice to be proven, a medical
expert should be a witness to attest to the accused’s medical malpractice.

In the case at bar, Petitioners’ complaint for damages is merely based on a statement in the
literature of Maxitrol identifying the risks of its use and Dr. Agulto’s comment. Thus, Dr. Tuaño in
not liable for any medical negligence or malpractice where there is no evidence, in the nature of
expert testimony, to establish that in treating Peter, Dr. Tuaño failed to exercise reasonable care,
diligence and skill generally required in medical practice. The complaint of the petitioners is
therefore lack of legal basis.