Topic: Torts > Quasi-delicts > General Principles > Elements the name and signature of Garcia as examiner

nature of Garcia as examiner and the rubber stamp

signature of Castro as pathologist.
Case No.: G.R. No. 168512. March 20, 2007.
 When Ranida submitted the result to company physician Dr. Sto.
Case Name Garcia v Salvador Domingo, the latter told her that the result indicated that she is
suffering from Hepatitis B, a liver disease. Based on the the doctor’s
Full Case Name: ORLANDO D. GARCIA, JR., doing business under the
medical report, the company terminated Ranida’s employment for
name and style COMMUNITY DIAGNOSTIC CENTER
failing the physical exam.
and BU CASTRO,1 Petitioners, vs. RANIDA D.
 When she informed her father Ramon, he suffered a heard attack and
SALVADOR and RAMON SALVADOR, Respondents.
was confined at Bataan Doctors Hospital. During her father’s
Ponente: Ynares-Santiago, J. confinement, she had another HBs Ag test at the same hospital. The
result indicated that she is non-reactive. She informed Sto. Domingo
Doctrine: Negligence is the failure to observe for the protection of but was told that the test by the CDC was more reliable because it
the interest of another person that degree of care, used the Mirco-Elisa Method.
precaution and vigilance which the circumstances justly  Thus, Ranida went back to CDC for confirmatory testing, and this
demand, whereby such other person suffers injury. The time, the Anti-HBs test conducted on her indicated a "Negative"
elements of actionable conduct are: 1) duty, 2) breach, result.
3) injury, and 4) proximate causation.  Ranida also underwent another HBs Ag test at the Bataan Doctors
Digest Writer: Karl Hospital using the Micro-Elisa Method. The result indicated that she
was non-reactive.
Nature: Petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of  Ranida submitted the test results from Bataan Doctors Hospital and
Court assailing the February 27, 2004 Decision3 of the CDC to the Executive Officer of the Company who requested her to
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 58668 finding undergo another similar test before her re-employment would be
petitioner Orlando D. Garcia liable for gross negligence; considered. Thus, CDC conducted another HBs Ag test on Ranida
and its June 16, 2005 Resolution denying petitioner’s which indicated a "Negative" result. Ma. Ruby G. Calderon, Med-Tech
motion for reconsideration. Officer-in-Charge of CDC, issued a Certification correcting the initial
result and explaining that the examining medical technologist
(Garcia) interpreted the delayed reaction as positive or reactive.
RELEVANT FACTS  Thereafter, the Company rehired Ranida.
o Ranida and Ramon filed a complaint for damages against
 Respondent Ranida D. Salvador started working as a trainee in the
petitioner Garcia and Castro.
Accounting Department of Limay Bulk Handling Terminal, Inc. (the
o They argued that by reason of the erroneous interpretation of
Company). As a prerequisite for regular employment, she underwent
the results of Ranida’s examination, she lost her job and
a medical examination at the Community Diagnostic Center (CDC).
suffered serious mental anxiety, trauma and sleepless nights,
Garcia who is a medical technologist, conducted the HBs Ag
while Ramon was hospitalized and lost business
(Hepatitis B Surface Antigen) test and as such, CDC issued the test
opportunities.
result indicating that Ranida was "HBs Ag: Reactive." The result bore
  The following are the defenses of Garcia and Castro: circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person suffers injury. For
o Garcia denied the allegations of gross negligence and health care providers, the test of the existence of negligence is: did the health
incompetence and reiterated the scientific explanation for the care provider either fail to do something which a reasonably prudent health
"false positive" result of the first HBs Ag test in his letter to care provider would have done, or that he or she did something that a
the respondents. reasonably prudent health care provider would not have done; and that failure
o Castro claimed that as pathologist, he rarely went to CDC and or action caused injury to the patient; if yes, then he is guilty of negligence.
only when a case was referred to him; that he did not examine
Ranida; and that the test results bore only his rubber-stamp
signature. The elements of an actionable conduct are:
 RTC dismissed the complaint for failure to present sufficient evidence
a. Duty
to prove the liability of Garcia and Castro. Respondents should have
presented Sto. Domingo because he was the one who interpreted the b. Breach
test result issued by CDC and a medical expert to refute the
testimonies of Garcia and Castro regarding the medical explanation c. Injury, and
behind the conflicting test results on Ranida. d. Proximate causation.
 CA reversed RTC’s ruling and found Garcial liable for damages for
negligently issuing an erroneous HBs Ag result. However, it
exonerated Castro for lack of participation.
All the elements are present in the case at bar.

ISSUE
Owners and operators of clinical laboratories have the duty to comply with
1. WON Castro was negligent in issuing the test result and thus liable statutes, as well as rules and regulations, purposely promulgated to protect
for damages. and promote the health of the people. Their business is impressed with public
interest, as such, high standards of performance are expected from them.

RATIO DECIDENDI
Violation of a statutory duty is negligence. Where the law1 imposes upon a
person the duty to do something, his omission or non-performance will render
YES. Negligence is the failure to observe for the protection of the interest of him liable to whoever may be injured thereby.
another person that degree of care, precaution and vigilance which the

1 RA 4688, otherwise known as the The Clinical Laboratory Law requires that a clinical licensed physician; and that the results of any examination may be released only to the
laboratory must be administered, directed and supervised by a licensed physician authorized requesting physician or his authorized representative upon the direction of the laboratory
by the Sec. of Health, like a pathologist who is specially trained in methods of laboratory pathologist.
medicine; that the medical technologist must be under the supervision of the pathologist or
 to moral damages, we see no reason to disturb the award of exemplary
damages and attorney’s fees.
The Court found petitioner Garcia failed to comply with the standards set by
applicable law:

a. CDC is not administered, directed and supervised by a DISPOSITIVE

licensed physician as required by law.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No.
b. Garcia conducted the HBs Ag test of respondent Ranida 58668 dated February 27, 2004 finding petitioner Orlando D. Garcia, Jr. guilty
without the supervision of defendant-appellee Castro. of gross negligence and liable to pay to respondents ₱50,000.00 as moral
damages, ₱50,000.00 as exemplary damages, and ₱25,000.00 as attorney’s
c. The HBs Ag test result was released to Ranida without the
fees, is AFFIRMED.
authorization of defendant-appellee Castro.

SO ORDERED.
Garcia’s failure to comply with the applicable law is failure to observe that
care which a reasonably prudent health care provider would observe. Thus,
his act or omission constitutes a breach of duty.
NO SEPARATE OPINIONS

In this case, Ranida suffered injury as a direct consequence of Garcia’s failure

to comply with the mandate of applicable law. She was terminated from the
service for failing the physical examination; suffered anxiety because of the
diagnosis; and was compelled to undergo several more tests. All these could
have been avoided had the proper safeguards been scrupulously followed in
conducting the clinical examination and releasing the clinical report.

Article 202 of the New Civil Code provides the legal basis for the award of
damages to a party who suffers damage whenever one commits an act in
violation of some legal provision.

CA’s award for moral damages are reasonable. Having established her right

2 Art. 20. Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same.