Case Name: Dr. Victoria Batiquin and Allan Batiquin v. Court of Appeals and By: Jonathan Sigfried G.

Manao
Spouses Quedo Acogido and Flotilde Villegas Topic: Medical malpractice
GR No. 118231
Date: July 5, 1996
FACTS
Dr. Batiquin performed a caesarean section on Villegas. The latter was able to deliver her first child.
After leaving the hospital, Villegas began to suffer abdominal pains, fever, and loss of appetite. Despite medications
prescribed, the pains persisted.
When the pains became unbearable and she was rapidly losing weight, she consulted Dr. Ma. Salud Kho. Upon Dr.
Khos examination:
o She felt an abdominal mass one finger below the umbilicus.
o A blood count showed that Villegas had an infection inside her abdominal cavity.
Hence, Dr. Kho suggested that Villegas submit to another surgery, to which the latter agreed.
When Dr. Kho opened the abdomen of Villegas, she found a piece of rubber material on the right side of the uterus
embedded in the ovarian cyst, 2 x 3/4 inches in size. Dr. Kho described this piece of rubber as a foreign body which
looked like a xxx torn section of a surgeons gloves xxx. This foreign body was said by Dr. Kho to be the cause of
the infection of the ovaries and consequently of all the discomfort suffered by Villegas after her delivery.
RTC: Ruled in favor of Dr. Batiquin.
Bases:
1. The piece of rubber was never presented. Dr. Kho said that it was sent to a pathologist, but it was not mentioned in the
pathologists Surgical Pathology Report.
2. Dr. Khos testimony was disregarded because, from her testimony, she had only heard somebody say that there was a
foreign body, and she did not know where the rubber was. (hearsay evidence)
3. Dr. Batiquin testified that when she confronted Dr. Kho, the latter told her that she threw the rubber away. Dr. Kho did
not deny this, which contradicts Dr. Khos earlier testimony that she sent the piece of rubber to a pathologist.
4. Dr. Batiquin and her assistant testified that no rubber drain was used in the operation, and that there was neither any tear
on Dr. Batiquins gloves after the operation nor blood smears on her hands upon removing her gloves.
5. Other evidence which mentioned the piece of rubber were also disregarded because the persons who testified them were
not able to testify regarding them.
CA: Reversed
Basis: Dr. Khos testimony was taken out of context, disregarding the other parts thereof, such as those stating that she
herself both conducted the operation and found the piece of rubber.
ISSUE
Whether or not Dr. Batiquin is negligent?
HELD
Yes, she is negligent.
1. The phrase singled-out by the RTC cannot negate as a whole Dr. Khos testimony that she saw a piece of rubber in
Villegass abdomen. This fact cannot be disputed notwithstanding the lack of mention in the Pathology Report.
2. The conflicting testimonies of Dr. Kho as to the current location of the piece of rubber (whether it was sent to a
pathologist or thrown away) do not necessarily mean that her whole testimony should not be accepted; a testimony
may be believed with regard to some parts, and disbelieved with regard to the others. Nonetheless, these testimonies do
not negate the fact that there was a piece of rubber discovered in the first place.
3. The testimonies of Dr. Batiquin and her assistant are denials or negative testimonies, which are less stronger than
positive testimonies coming from a credible witness. Despite the aforesaid contradictions, Dr. Kho is a credible
witness because: (1) there were no infirmities in her testimony; (2) she was frank throughout her turn on the witness
stand; and (3) there was no motive imputed against her to state any untruth. Thus, her positive testimony should be
upheld.
4. Res ipsa loquitur: the thing speaks for itself; rebuttable presumption or inference that defendant was negligent,
which arises upon proof (1) that the instrumentality causing injury was in defendants exclusive control, and (2)
that the accident was one which ordinarily does not happen in absence of negligence
Both requisites are present in this case.
a. The entire proceedings of the caesarean section were under the exclusive control of Dr. Batiquin.
b. The introduction of the foreign object into the patients body does not occur unless through the
intervention of negligence.
Doctrine Notes
Under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, a defendant is presumed negligent upon a
showing that: (1) the instrumentality causing injury was in defendants exclusive
control, and (2) the accident was one which ordinarily does not happen in absence
of negligence.