Ruñez Jr. v. Dr. Jurado - A.M. No. 2005-08-SC - December 9, 2005 - DIGEST

Ruez Jr. v. Dr.
Jurado
A.M. No. 2005-08-SC
December 9, 2005
AZCUNA, J.:
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS:

Samuel Ruez Sr. (Ruez, Sr) went to the Courts clinic complaining of dizziness. The
reception nurse attended to him and checked his blood pressure and pulse rate and registered
at 210/100 mmHg and 112 beats a minute. Dr. Marybeth Jurado (Jurado) prescribed the nurse
to give him Capoten 25mg to lower his blood pressure. Dr. Jurado then informed Ruez Sr. that he
would be taken to the hospital and that there would be an ambulance driver to take him there.
However after taking the drug and taking a short rest, Ruez, Sr. stood up and walked out saying
Doktora, hanap lang ho ako ng kasama.Dr. Jurado waited for Ruez, Sr. to come back but never
did. She even asked the nurse, Mr. Almarza, to look for Ruez, Sr. but to no avail
Samuel Ruez, Jr. (Ruez Jr.) was informed of his fathers condition and rushed him to the
Manila Doctors Hospital. Ruez Sr. was treated in the emergency room and was then released.
However 4hrs after, while on the way home, he began to experience nausea, abnormal
palpitation and uneasiness and had to be brought back to the hospital.
For the second time, Ruez, Sr. was brought to the emergency room. He underwent a
CT scan and showed that he had a blood clot, and was thus admitted for treatment and
observation. Sadly, he died due to a stroke the next day.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE:

Ruez, Jr. filed a letter complaint before the Office of the Chiefe Justice regarding the
lack of attention by Dr. Jurado to his father. Dr. Jurado, corroborated by the ambulance driver
and the nurse who searched for him, that the good doctor informed Ruez, Sr. that he would be
brought to the hospital, however despite such instruction Ruez, Sr. went on his own way. The
letter of complaint was reffered to Atty. Eden Candelaria (Candelaria).
Candelaria submitted her report and gave credence that Dr. Jurado exercised less than
the diligence of a good father of a family and should be accountable for simple negligence.
ISSUE:
Whether Dr. Jurado was negligent in attending to Ruez, Sr.
RULING:
NO, doctors duty to his patient is not required to be extraordinary. [8] The standard
contemplated for doctors is simply the reasonable average merit among ordinarily good
physicians, i.e. reasonable skill and competence.[9] We are persuaded that Dr. Jurado fulfilled
such a standard when she treated Ruez, Sr. inside the clinic.
. Jurado may have allowed Ruez, Sr. to walk out of the clinic despite her earlier diagnosis of his
condition. By that time Ruez, Sr.s condition had temporarily stabilized and she did not have the
authority to stop him just as other doctors have no power, save in certain instances (such as
when the law makes treatment compulsory due to some communicable disease [13] or when
consent is withheld by a minor but non-treatment would be detrimental or when the court of
competent jurisdiction orders the treatment), to force patients into staying under their care. Dr.
Jurado relied on Ruez, Sr.s representation that he would return in order to be brought to the
hospital but made no undertaking to wait for him beyond the clinic hours or to look for him if he
did not return. Thus, when Ruez, Sr. failed to show up as of closing time, and could not be found
by the male nurse who looked for him at her instructions, Dr. Jurado had reason to think that he
had decided to disregard her medical advice, which he in fact did when he and Ruez, Jr. decided
to go to the hospital on their own. Ruez, Sr., still of sound mind, had the right to accept or ignore
his doctors recommendation. Dr. Jurado was obligated to care for Ruez, Sr. when the latter asked
for medical treatment, which she did, but when he left on his own accord Dr. Jurado was not
expected, much less duty-bound, to seek out her patient and continue being his doctor.
Dr. Jurado could have exerted greater efforts by searching all over the compound for
Ruez, Sr. but the fact remains that these were not part of her duties nor were they expected from
her. Simple neglect of duty presupposes a task expected of an employee. Thus, it cannot be
present if there was no expected task on her part. That said, the Court wishes to exhort Dr. Jurado,
and all personnel in its clinic, not to be satisfied with merely fulfilling the minimum, but to go for
the magis, the best service they can render by way of being exemplars for their fellow workers
in the Court.

Ruñez Jr. v. Dr. Jurado - A.M. No. 2005-08-SC - December 9, 2005 - DIGEST

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ruñez Jr. v. Dr. Jurado - A.M. No. 2005-08-SC - December 9, 2005 - DIGEST

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ruñez Jr. v. Dr. Jurado - A.M. No. 2005-08-SC - December 9, 2005 - DIGEST

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ruez Jr. v. Dr.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE:

You might also like