Atienza vs.

Board of Medicine
G.R. No. 177407
Feb 9, 2011

NACHURA, J.:

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Editha Sioson (Private Respondent) went to Rizal Medical Center (RMC) to
submit for a check-up due to her lumbar pains. She was referred to Dr. Pedro Lantin III
(Lantin). Her diagnostic laboratory test results revealed that her right kidney was normal
while her left kidney was non-functioning and non-visualizing. Hence, she underwent kidney
operation under the care of the four physicians namely: Dr. Judd dela Vega, Dr. Pedro
Lantin III, Dr. Gerardo Antonio and petitioner Dr. Rico Rommel Atienza (Atienza). The
said physicians removed her fully functioning right kidney instead of the left non-functioning
and non-visualizing kidney.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE:

Due to their gross negligence and incompetence, private respondent filed a
complaint against the four doctors before the Board of Medicine. Private respondent therein
offered four certified photocopies as her documentary evidence to prove that her kidneys
were both in their proper anatomical locations at the time that she was operated.

The Board of Medicine admitted the formal offer despite the objection of herein
petitioner. Petitioner contends that the documentary evidence offered were inadmissible as
it were incompetent. Further, he alleged that the same documents were not properly
identified and authenticated, violate the best evidence rule and his substantive rights, and
are completely hearsay.

ISSUES:
1.) Whether the exhibits are inadmissible evidence on the ground that it violates the
best evidence rule.

2.) Whether the exhibits are inadmissible evidence on the ground that they have not
been properly identified and authenticated.

3.) Whether the exhibits are inadmissible evidence on the ground that it is completely
hearsay.

4.) Whether the admission of the documents violated the substantive rights of the
petitioner.
RULING:
1. No. The subject of the inquiry in this case is whether the doctors are liable for gross
negligence in removing the right functioning kidney of Editha instead of the left non-
functioning kidney, not the proper anatomical locations of Editha’s kidneys. The proper
anatomical locations of Editha’s kidneys at the time of her operation at the RMC may be
established not only through the exhibits offered in evidence.

In fact, the introduction of secondary evidence is allowed. Section 3, Rule 130 provides
that when the subject of the inquiry is the contents of the document, no evidence shall
be admissible other than the original document itself, except when the original has been
lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court without bad faith on the offeror. Since
the original documents cannot be produced based on the testimony of Dr. Aquino BOM
properly admitted Editha’s formal offer of evidence, and thereafter, the BOM shall
determine the probative value thereof when it decides the case.

2. No, the documentary evidence were properly identified and authenticated. The records
show that the exhibits offered by private respondent were the same evidence attached
in Doctor Lantin's counter-affidavit filed before the Office of the City Prosecutor in answer
to the criminal complaint of the respondent. To lay the predicate for her case, private
respondent offered the exhibits in evidence to prove that her kidneys were both in their
proper anatomical locations at the time of her operation.

3. No, these exhibits do not constitute hearsay evidence. The anatomical positions
whether left or right, of Editha’s kidneys, and the removal of one or both, may still be
established through a belated ultrasound or x-ray of her abdominal area.

4. No, petitioner’s substantive rights were not violated when the documentary evidence
were admitted. The fact sought to be proved by the exhibits that the two kidneys of Editha
were in their proper anatomical locations at the time she was operated on is presumed
under Section 3 of Rule 131 of the Rules of Court which provides that things have
happened according to the ordinary course of nature and the ordinary habits of life.

The fact sought to be established by the admission of the respondent’s exhibit need not
be proved as it is covered by mandatory judicial notice. Laws of nature involving the
physical science, specifically biology include the structural make-up and composition of
living things such as human beings in which the court may take judicial notice.