Torts and Damages Case Digest: Gatchalian v. Delim (1991)

G.R. No. L-56487 October 21, 1991
Lessons Applicable: Personal Injury and Death (Torts and Damages)

Laws Applicable: 

FACTS:

• July 11,1973: Reynalda Gatchalian boarded Thames" mini bus at Aringay, La Union bound for Bauang, of the same province.  The bus bumped a cement flower pot on the side of the road, went off the road, turned turtle and fell into a ditch.
• Gatchalian got injured with physical injuries on the leg, arm and forehead
• Mrs. Adela Delim visited the passenger and later paid for their hospitalization and medical expenses.  She also gave transportation expense of P12 in going home from the hospital and they were made to sign a Joint Affidavit stating that they are no longer interested to file a complaint, criminal or civil against the said driver and owner of the said Thames.
• Gatchalian filed in the CFI an action extra contractu to recover compensatory and moral damages stating that the mishap had left her with a conspicuous white scar measuring 1 by 1/2 inches on the forehead, generating mental suffering and an inferiority complex on her part
• as a result, she had to retire in seclusion and stay away from her friends
• scar diminished her facial beauty and deprived her of opportunities for employment
• Delim averred that it was a fortuitous event
• CFI: dismissed because of the Joint Affidavit
• CA: affirmed

ISSUE: W/N Gatchalian is entitled to damages

HELD: YES. CA, CFI REVERSED and SET ASIDE 1) P15,000 actual or compensatory damages to cover the cost of plastic surgery for the removal of the scar on petitioner's forehead; 2) P30,000 moral damages; and 3) P1,000 attorney's fees, the aggregate amount to bear interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum counting from the promulgation of this decision until full payment thereof

• A waiver, to be valid and effective, must in the first place be couched in clear and unequivocal terms which leave no doubt as to the intention of a person to give up a right or benefit which legally pertains to him.
• while reading the same, she experienced dizziness but that, seeing the other passengers who had also suffered injuries sign the document, she too signed without bothering to read the Joint Affidavit in its entirety. Considering these circumstances there appears substantial doubt whether petitioner understood fully the import of the Joint Affidavit
• To uphold a supposed waiver of any right to claim damages by an injured passenger, under circumstances like those exhibited in this case, would be to dilute and weaken the standard of extraordinary diligence exacted by the law from common carriers and hence to render that standard unenforceable. 
• To exempt a common carrier from liability for death or physical injuries to passengers upon the ground of force majeure, the carrier must clearly show not only that the efficient cause of the casualty was entirely independent of the human will, but also that it was impossible to avoid.
• The driver did not stop to check if anything had gone wrong with the bus after the snapping sound
• Court of Appeals, however, found that at the time of the accident, she was no longer employed in a public school since, being a casual employee and not a Civil Service eligible, she had been laid off. Her employment as a substitute teacher was occasional and episodic, contingent upon the availability of vacancies for substitute teachers. 
• A person is entitled to the physical integrity of his or her body; if that integrity is violated or diminished, actual injury is suffered for which actual or compensatory damages are due and assessable. Petitioner Gatchalian is entitled to be placed as nearly as possible in the condition that she was before the mishap. A scar, especially one on the face of the woman, resulting from the infliction of injury upon her, is a violation of bodily integrity, giving raise to a legitimate claim for restoration to her conditio ante. If the scar is relatively small and does not grievously disfigure the victim, the cost of surgery may be expected to be correspondingly modest. 
• In view of the testimony, and the fact that a considerable amount of time has lapsed since the mishap in 1973 which may be expected to increase not only the cost but also very probably the difficulty of removing the scar, we consider that the amount of P15,000.00 to cover the cost of such plastic surgery is not unreasonable 
• moral damages may be awarded where gross negligence on the part of the common carrier

Torts and Damages Case Digest: Ramos v. CA (1999)

G.R. No. 124354  December 29, 1999

Lessons Applicable: Personal Injury and Death (Torts and Damages)

Laws Applicable: 

FACTS:

• June 17, 1985 afternoon: Erlinda Ramos, 47-year old robust woman underwent on an operation to the stone at her gall bladder removed after being tested that she was fit for "cholecystectomy" operation performed by Dr. Orlino Hozaka.  Dr. Hosaka charged a fee of P16,000.00, which was to include the anesthesiologist's fee and which was to be paid after the operation.  He assured Rogelio E. Ramos, husband that he will get a good anesthesiologist who was Dra. Perfecta Gutierrez.  Erlinda's hand was held by Herminda Cruz, her sister -in-law who was the Dean of the College of Nursing at the Capitol Medical Center together with her husband went down with her to the operating room. 
• Instead of 9:30 am, Dr. Hosaka arrived at about 12:15 P.M.
• Herminda noticing what Dra. Perfecta Gutierrez was doing, saw the nailbed of Erlinda becoming bluish and Dr. Hosaka called for another anesthesiologist  Dr. Calderon.  
• She went out of the operating room to tell Rogelio that something is wrong. 
• When she went back she saw Erlinda in a trendelenburg position and at 3 p.m. she was taken to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) where she stayed for a month due to bronchospasm incurring P93,542.25 and she was since then comatosed. 
• She suffered brain damage as a result of the absence of oxygen in her brain for four to five minutes. 
• She was also diagnosed to be suffering from "diffuse cerebral parenchymal damage" 
•  Monthly expenses ranged from P8,000 to P10,000
• Spouses Ramos and their minors filed against Dr. Hosaka and Dra. Perfecta Gutierrez 
• RTC: favored the Ramos' awarding P8,000 as actual monthly expenses totalling to P632,000 as of April 15, 1992, P100,000 atty. fees, P800,000 moral damages,P200,000 exemplary damages and cost of suit
• CA: reversed ordering the Ramos' to pay their unpaid bills of P93,542.25 plus interest

ISSUE: W/N the Ramos' are entitled to damages

HELD: YES. CA modified in favor of petitioners, and solidarily against private respondents the following: 1) P1,352,000 actual damages computed as of the date of promulgation plus a monthly payment of P8,000.00 up to the time that petitioner Erlinda Ramos expires or miraculously survives; 2) P2,000,000 moral damages, 3) P1,500,000 temperate damages; 4) P100,000 exemplary damages and P100,000  attorney's fees; and, 5) the costs of the suit.

• The application of res ipsa loquitur in medical negligence cases presents a question of law since it is a judicial function to determine whether a certain set of circumstances does, as a matter of law, permit a given inference. 
• doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is availed by the plaintiff, the need for expert medical testimony is dispensed with because the injury itself provides the proof of negligence - applicable in this case
• doctrine of res ipsa loquitur can have no application in a suit against a physician or surgeon which involves the merits of a diagnosis or of a scientific treatment
• As borne by the records, respondent Dra. Gutierrez failed to properly intubate the patient according to witness Herminda
• With her clinical background as a nurse, the Court is satisfied  with her testimony
• Dra. Gutierrez' act of seeing her patient for the first time only an hour before the scheduled operative procedure was, therefore, an act of exceptional negligence and professional irresponsibility
• Generally, to qualify as an expert witness, one must have acquired special knowledge of the subject matter about which he or she is to testify, either by the study of recognized authorities on the subject or by practical experience. 
• Dr. Jamora, not an anesthesiologist, stated that oxygen deprivation which led to anoxic encephalopathy was due to an unpredictable drug reaction to the short-acting barbiturate was not accepted as expert opinion
• Dr. Hosaka's negligence can be found in his failure to exercise the proper authority in not determining if his anesthesiologist observed proper anesthesia protocols
• Dr. Hosaka had scheduled another procedure in a different hospital at the same time as Erlinda's cholecystectomy, and was in fact over three hours late for the latter's operation. Because of this, he had little or no time to confer with his anesthesiologist regarding the anesthesia delivery. This indicates that he was remiss in his professional duties towards his patient 
• private hospitals, hire, fire and exercise real control over their attending and visiting "consultant" staff. While "consultants" are not, technically employees, a point which respondent hospital asserts in denying all responsibility for the patient's condition, the control exercised, the hiring, and the right to terminate consultants all fulfill the important hallmarks of an employer-employee relationship, with the exception of the payment of wages.
• Art. 2199. — Except as provided by law or by stipulation, one is entitled to an adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved. Such compensation is referred to as actual or compensatory damages.
• temperate damages can and should be awarded on top of actual or compensatory damages in instances where the injury is chronic and continuing. And because of the unique nature of such cases, no incompatibility arises when both actual and temperate damages are provided for. The reason is that these damages cover two distinct phases.
• They should not be compelled by dire circumstances to provide substandard care at home without the aid of professionals, for anything less would be grossly inadequate. Under the circumstances, an award of P1,500,000.00 in temperate damages would therefore be reasonable. 
• the damage done to her would not only be permanent and lasting, it would also be permanently changing and adjusting to the physiologic changes which her body would normally undergo through the years.
• Erlinda Ramos was in her mid-forties when the incident occurred. She has been in a comatose state for over fourteen years now
• Ramos' are charged with the moral responsibility of the care of the victim. The family's moral injury and suffering in this case is clearly a real one. Award of P2,000,000 in moral damages would be appropriate.
• Finally, by way of example, exemplary damages in the amount of P100,000.00 are hereby awarded. Considering the length and nature of the instant suit we are of the opinion that attorney's fees valued at P100,000 are likewise proper.