Dr. Idol Bondoc vs Marilou R.

Mantala
G.R. No. 203080, November 12, 2014
Villarama, Jr., J:

Facts:
On April 3, 2009, herein respondent, Marilou Mantala, was admitted to the Oriental
Mindoro Provincial Hospital at around eleven in the morning. She was admitted there as per
referral from the Bansud Municipal Health Office where she first came for assistance to deliver
her 5th child. She was advised for a caesarian section because her baby was big and there was
excessive amniotic fluid in her womb. She started to labor at 7:00am and was initially brought to
the Bongabon Health Center, but the said health center told her to proceed directly to the
provincial hospital. As the respondent stated in her complaint-affidavit, she alleged that when
she was admited to the said provincial hospital, she was attended to by herein petitioner, Dr. Idol
Bondoc, in the delivery room who instructed the midwife and two younger assistants to press
down on respondent’s abdomen and even demonstrated to them how to insert their fingers into
her vagina. Thereafter, petitioner went out of the delivery room and later, his assistants also left.

After several hours into labor, the respondent finally pleaded for a ceasarian section,
however, it was unheeded. The midwife and the young assistants continued to press down on
respondent's abdomen as instructed by herein petitioner which caused excruciating pain on her
ribs and made her very weak. After that the baby finally came out with the placenta, and she lost
consciousness. When she regained her consciousness back, she was already in the recovery
room and was devastated when learned that her baby did not make it alive and that an
operation was performed on her to removed her ruptured uterus which cause her to lose her
reproductive capacity.

Herein respondent's statements and claims were corraborated by her husband, her
sisters and Dr. Fabon, the anaesthetician. Dr. Fabon testified that he heard derogatory
statements from herein petitioner regarding the condition of respondent. The respondent
noticed that her vulva swollen and there is an open wound which widened later on and was re-
stitched by petitioner. Petitioner was heard uttering words unbecoming of his profession
pertaining to the respondent’s states while in labor. Respondent filed then a complaint for grave
misconduct against the petitioner before the ombudsman. The petitioner resigned as medical
officer of OMPH, alleging that the complaint against him is now moot and academic. The
Ombudsman found the petitioner guilty of grave misconduct and ordered his dismissal from
government service. This was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

Issue:
Did the conduct of herein petitioner during the delivery of respondent's baby constitute grave
misconduct?

Held:
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals in this case stating that
there was grave misconduct on the part of petitioner.

The Supreme Court defined first what constitute a misconduct. According to it, misconduct is a
transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful
behavior or gross negligence by a public officer, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in
character, and implies wrongful intent and not mere error in judgment. It noted held that it
generally means wrongful, improper or unlawful conduct motivated by a premeditated,
obstinate or intentional purpose. The term, however does not necessarily imply corruption or
criminal intent. To constitute an administrative offense, misconduct should relate to or be
connected with the performance of the official functions and duties of a public officer. On the
other hand, when the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard
of established rule are manifest, the public officer shall be liable for grave misconduct.

The Supreme Court agreed wit the Court of Appeals that by deliberately leaving the respondent
to a midwife and two inexperienced assistants despite knowing that she was under prolonged
painful labor and about to give birth to a macrosomic baby by vaginal delivery, petitioner clearly
committed a dereliction of duty and a breach of his professional obligations. The gravity of
respondent’s conditions is highlighted by the expected complications she suffered – her stillborn
baby, a ruptured uterus that necessitated the immediate surgery and blood transfusion and
vulvar hematomas. Citing Article II section 1 of the code of medical ethics of the medical
profession in the Philippines states stating A physician, should attend to his patients faithfully
and conscientiously. He should secure fore them all possible benefits that may depend upon his
professional skill and care. As the sole tribunal to adjudge the physician’s failure to fulfill his
obligation to his patient is, in most cases, his own conscience, violation of this rule on his part is
discreditable and inexcusable.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court found that herein petitioner is indeed guilty of grave misconduct.
A doctor’s duty to his patient is not required to be extraordinary. The standard contemplated for
doctors is simply the reasonable coverage merit among ordinarily good physicians i.e.
reasonable skill and competence. Even by this standard, petitioner fill short when he routinely
delegated an important task that requires his professional skill and competence to his
subordinates who have no requisite training and capability to make crucial decisions in difficult
child births. A physician should be dedicated to provide competent medical care with full
professional skill and accordance with the current standards of care, compassion, independence,
and respect for human dignity.