Rosit vs.

Davao Doctors Hospital

G.R. No. 210445
December 7, 2015

VELASCO, JR., J.:

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Nilo Rosit (Rosit) fractured his Jaw in a motorcycle accident. He was operated in Davao
Doctors Hospital (DDH) by Dr. Rolando Gestuvo (Gestuvo). During the operation there was an
absence of small titanium screws, hence Dr. Gestuvo just cut the available ones despite the fact
there were some available in Manila. Dr. Gestuvo did not inform Rosit of such fact considering that
he could not afford the same
After the operation he Rosit couldn’t open his jaws properly and was in pain. An x-ray was
conducted on him and saw that one of the screws hit his molar. Dr. Gestuvo referred him to a dentist,
Dr. Pangan, that a 2nd operation would be necessary due to the fact that the 1st operation was
improperly done. 2nd operation was said to be performed in Cebu.
Rosit wnet back to Dr. Gestuvo to demand a loan to defray the cost of the additional
operation aswell as transpo fees.
Dr. Pangan removed the plate and screws and installed a smaller one with the proper
titanium screws. His molar that was hit and some bone fragments were also extracted. Going back
to Davao, Rosit demanded 190k in total for all the expenses from Dr. Gestuvo. Dr. Gestuvo refused
to pay.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE:

Rosit filed a case for civil damages and atty’s fees with the RTC of Davao and DDH. The RTC
ruled in favor of Rosit under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Dr. Gestuvo appealed before the CA,
who granted the same. The CA removed the awards and stated that said principle was not applicable
hence an expert testimony was necessary. Rosit filed an MR, buy was denied, hence this petition.

ISSUES:
Whether the appellate court correctly absolved Dr. Gestuvo’s liability.

RULING:
YES, due to the principle of res ipsa loquitur.

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur as an exception to the requirement of an expert testimony
in medical negligence cases may be availed of if the following essential requisites are satisfied:

(1) the accident was of a kind that does not ordinarily occur unless someone is
negligent;
(2) the instrumentality or agency that caused the injury was under the exclusive
control of the person charged; and
(3) the injury suffered must not have been due to any voluntary action or
contribution of the person injured.
 The first element was sufficiently established when Rosit proved that one of the screws
installed by Dr. Gestuvo struck his molar. It was for this issue that Dr. Gestuvo himself referred Rosit
to Dr. Pangan. In fact, the affidavit of Dr. Pangan presented by Dr. Gestuvo himself before the trial
court narrated that the same molar struck with the screw installed by Dr. Gestuvo was examined
and eventually operated on by Dr. Pangan. Dr. Gestuvo cannot now go back and say that Dr. Pangan
treated a molar different from that which was affected by the first operation

Anent the second element for the res ipsa loquitur doctrine application, it is sufficient that
the operation which resulted in the screw hitting Rosit's molar was, indeed, performed by Dr.
Gestuvo. No other doctor caused such fact.

Lastly, the third element that the injury suffered must not have been due to any voluntary
action or contribution of the person injured was satisfied in this case. It was not shown that Rosit's
lung disease could have contributed to the pain. What is clear is that he suffered because one of the
screws that Dr. Gestuvo installed hit Rosit's molar.