Cantre v. Sps. John David Z. Go and Nora S.

Go
G.R. No. J60889, 2007 April 27, Second Division (Quisimbing, J.)



1be iocratic Oatb vavaate. b,.iciav. to gire rivoraiat cov.iaeratiov to tbe rettbeivg of tbeir
atievt.. f a aoctor fait. to tire v to tbi. recet, be i. accovvtabte for bi. act.. 1bi. votritb.tavaivg, covrt. face
a vviqve re.traivt iv aa;vaicativg veaicat vegtigevce ca.e. becav.e b,.iciav. are vot gvaravtor. of care ava, tbe,
verer .et ovt to ivtevtiovatt, cav.e iv;vr, to tbeir atievt.. orerer, ivtevt i. ivvateriat iv vegtigevce ca.e.
becav.e rbere vegtigevce ei.t. ava i. rorev, it avtovaticatt, gire. tbe iv;vrea a rigbt to rearatiov for tbe
aavage cav.ea.


Petitioner Dr. Milagros L. Cantre is a specialist in Obstetrics and Gynecology at the Dr.
Jesus Delgado Memorial lospital. She was the attending physician o respondent Nora S. Go,
who was admitted at the said hospital on April 19, 1992. \hen Nora gae birth to her ourth
child, Nora suered prouse bleeding inside her womb due to some parts o the placenta which
were not completely expelled rom her womb ater deliery. Consequently, Nora suered
hypoolemic shock, resulting in a drop in her blood pressure to 40` oer 0.` 1he assisting
attending physician used arious medical procedures or the recoery o Nora and her baby,
which includes the use o a droplight to warm Nora and her baby.

Nora`s husband, Respondent John Go saw that there was a wound in the let arm o
Nora. John asked the nurses what had caused the wound and they told him that the wound was
a burn. \hen they asked or a medical examination in the said hospital, the petitioner physician
said that the blood pressure cu caused the injury. loweer , when John Daid brought Nora to
the National Bureau o Inestigation or medical examination, the medico-legal oicer testiied
that the injury was a burn caused by a droplight.

Because o this, the spouses Go iled a complaint or recoery o damages due to
negligence against the petitioner physician. 1he trial court ruled in aor o respondents
awarding them the recoery o damages rom the petitioner and the hospital. Petitioner Cantre
appealed to the Court o Appeals but denied and airmed the decision o the trial court with
some modiications as to the amount o the damages.

lence, this petition.

ISSULS:

\hether or not Petitioner Cantre and the hospital liable or the injury brought to Nora

HLLD:

Petition DISMISSLD.
1he Court ruled that although Dr. Cantre and his medical sta did their best or the
welare o their patient, still this couldn`t be an excuse or negligence. lollowing the captain o
the ship` principle, Petitioner Cantre is responsible or any injuries that arise due to negligence
een done by his medical sta. \hether the injury was caused by the blood pressure cu or by
the droplight, petitioner was still negligent in her duties as Nora`s attending physician.
1he lippocratic Oath mandates physicians to gie primordial consideration to the well-
being o their patients. I a doctor ails to lie up to this precept, he is accountable or his acts.
1his notwithstanding, courts ace a unique restraint in adjudicating medical negligence cases
because physicians are not guarantors o care and, they neer set out to intentionally cause injury
to their patients. loweer, intent is immaterial in negligence cases because where negligence
exists and is proen, it automatically gies the injured a right to reparation or the damage
caused.
In cases inoling medical negligence, the doctrine o re. i.a toqvitvr allows the mere
existence o an injury to justiy a presumption o negligence on the part o the person who
controls the instrument causing the injury, proided that the ollowing requisites concur:
1. 1he accident is o a kind, which ordinarily does not occur in the absence
o someone`s negligence,

2. It is caused by an instrumentality within the exclusie control o the
deendant or deendants, and

3. 1he possibility o contributing conduct which would make the plainti
responsible is eliminated.
As to the irst requisite, it was clear that the injury was brought as a result o negligence
by the attending physician. 1he gaping wound on Nora`s arm is certainly not an ordinary
occurrence in the act o deliering a baby, ar remoed as the arm is rom the organs inoled in
the process o giing birth. Such injury could not hae happened unless negligence had set in
somewhere.
Second, whether the injury was caused by the droplight or by the blood pressure cu is
o no moment. Both instruments are deemed within the exclusie control o the physician in
charge under the captain o the ship` doctrine. 1his doctrine holds the surgeon in charge o an
operation liable or the negligence o his assistants during the time when those assistants are
under the surgeon`s control. In this particular case, it can be logically inerred that petitioner, the
senior consultant in charge during the deliery o Nora`s baby, exercised control oer the
assistants assigned to both the use o the droplight and the taking o Nora`s blood pressure.
lence, the use o the droplight and the blood pressure cu is also within petitioner`s exclusie
control.
1hird, the gaping wound on Nora`s let arm, by its ery nature and considering her
condition, could only be caused by something external to her and outside her control as she was
unconscious while in hypoolemic shock. lence, Nora could not, by any stretch o the
imagination, hae contributed to her own injury.
Considering that the our requisites were present in the case, the Court ruled that there
was medical negligence on the part o Petitioner Cantre and the hospital. Clearly, under the law,
petitioner is obliged to pay Nora or moral damages suered by the latter as a proximate result
o petitioner`s negligence.