De Jesus V. Dr. Uyloan, G.R. No.
234851
Facts:
The case centers on a medical malpractice claim filed by Paolo Anthony De
Jesus against Dr. Romeo F. Uyloan, Dr. John Francois Ojeda, and the
Asian Hospital and Medical Center (AHMC) for damages under Articles
1170 and 1173 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. De Jesus alleges
negligence during a laparoscopic cholecystectomy (gallbladder removal
surgery) performed on him by Dr. Uyloan, assisted by Dr. Ojeda, at AHMC
in September 2010.
The initial diagnosis was cholelithiasis, and De Jesus consented to a
laparoscopic procedure, expecting small incisions. However, the doctors
performed an open cholecystectomy without his consent, which led to
complications, including blood loss and bile duct injury. Upon discharge, he
experienced further medical issues, which led to another surgery to repair
damage caused by the first operation. De Jesus argues that his common
bile duct was mistakenly cut, causing severe complications that required
further medical treatment.
De Jesus filed the lawsuit in 2015, claiming negligence and seeking
damages. The defendants moved to dismiss the case based on
prescription (the statute of limitations), forum shopping (filing multiple cases
for the same cause), and lack of jurisdiction. They argued that the case
was filed beyond the four-year prescriptive period applicable to quasi-delict
cases (as per Article 1146 of the Civil Code), given that the surgery
occurred in 2010 and the complaint was filed in 2015.
ISSUE:
The primary issue is whether the Court of Appeals (CA) committed
reversible error by ruling that the Regional Trial Court (RTC) gravely
abused its discretion in denying the motions to dismiss the case,
particularly concerning the applicable prescriptive period.
RTC Ruling:
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially denied the motions to dismiss filed
by Dr. Uyloan, Dr. Ojeda, and the Asian Hospital and Medical Center
(AHMC). The court ruled that the issue of prescription (the time limit for
filing the case) could not be resolved through a motion to dismiss, as it
required further evidence. The RTC also rejected the claim of forum
shopping, stating that the criminal, administrative, and civil cases had
different causes of action.
In August 2016, the RTC denied the motions for reconsideration filed by the
parties, reiterating that the complaint sufficiently alleged the facts
necessary for a cause of action. It ordered the defendants to file their
answers to the complaint.
CA Ruling:
However, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC's decision. The CA
ruled that the complaint was based on medical negligence, for which the
prescriptive period is four years under Article 1146 of the Civil Code. Since
the surgery occurred on September 15, 2010, and the complaint was filed
on November 10, 2015, the CA held that the case was filed beyond the
four-year period and should be dismissed. The CA concluded that the RTC
had gravely abused its discretion in not ruling that the action was time-
barred.
The petitioner's motion for reconsideration was also denied by the CA.
The Supreme Court's Ruling
The Court denied the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals' (CA) decision
and resolution.
1. Jurisdiction Under Rule 45:
The Court reaffirmed that its jurisdiction in a petition for review on
certiorari under Rule 45 is confined to reviewing questions of law. In
this case, the issue of prescription falls under a question of law,
specifically the applicable prescriptive period under the Civil Code, as
the facts were undisputed.
2. Prescription in Law and Fact:
The Court explained that prescription can either be a question of law
or fact, depending on whether the issue relates to factual allegations
(fact) or the correct application of the law to an undisputed set of facts
(law). In this case, the dispute revolved around which legal provision
applied to the prescriptive period, making it a question of law.
3. Medical Negligence vs. Contractual Claim:
While the petitioner framed the case as one based on a breach of
contract due to an implied physician-patient relationship, the Court
concluded that the claim was for medical malpractice or negligence.
The petitioner failed to establish any express promise by the
physicians to achieve a specific result, which would have been
necessary to support a contract-based claim. Instead, the allegations
clearly indicated a failure to meet the professional standard of care,
which is governed by the law on quasi-delicts (Article 2176 of the Civil
Code).
4. No Express Contract Alleged:
The Court highlighted that for a breach of contract claim in medical
malpractice, there must be an express promise or agreement by the
physician to cure or achieve a specific result. The petitioner merely
referenced an implied contract, which was insufficient to establish a
contractual cause of action. As such, the case falls squarely under
medical malpractice or negligence, which is based on tort law.
5. Prescriptive Period:
Since the action was based on a quasi-delict, the applicable
prescriptive period is four years under Article 1146 of the Civil Code.
The petitioner's claim, which accrued on September 15, 2010 (the
date of the surgery), was filed on November 10, 2015, beyond the
four-year period. Therefore, the action was time-barred.
6. Hybrid Tort and Contract Theory Rejected:
The Court rejected the petitioner's attempt to present a hybrid tort
and contract theory. The inclusion of the contract theory appeared to
be an afterthought designed to circumvent the prescriptive period
applicable to tort claims.
Conclusion
The Court ruled that the petitioner's cause of action for medical malpractice
had prescribed, as it was filed more than five years after the cause of
action accrued. The applicable four-year prescriptive period under Article
1146 of the Civil Code barred the claim. Thus, the CA's ruling to dismiss the
case was upheld.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The June 16, 2017 Decision and
October 11, 2017 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP
No. 148192 are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
