De Jesus v. Uyloan

 

De Jesus v. Uyloan

G.R. No. 234851

February 15, 2022

 

FACTS:

Dr. Uyloan diagnosed petitioner with Cholelithiasis, he was advised to undergo laparoscopic cholecystectomy to remove the gallstones, the operation was done in AHMC on September 15, 2010, with Uyloan as attending surgeon and Ojeda as assisting surgeon. The doctors performed an open cholelithiasis without petitioners’ approval or consent. The petitioner lost a lot of blood, which necessitated blood transfusion. Upon his discharge, his forms mentioned that he was in good condition, but he experienced vomiting, unbearable pain in the abdominal area and a continuous leak in his colostomy bag even after three days from discharge. The petitioner went to another hospital, and the results of examination showed that the common bile duct was cut and clipped. He needed another operation. This led the petitioner to file a case for actual, moral and exemplary damages, attorney's fees and litigation costs for the breach of professional duty. The respondents filed a motion to dismiss anchored on prescription, forum shopping and lack of jurisdiction. AHMC and Ojeda also moved to dismiss the case based on the ground that the action should have been filed four years from September 15, 2010. The RTC denied both motions. Uyloan filed a petition for certiorari. The CA reversed the RTC Ruling and ordered the dismissal of the complaint. The cause of action was based on medical negligence for which the applicable period is 4 years.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the case is already barred by prescription.

HELD:

Yes. The Court holds that a mere reference to an implied contract between the physician and the patient in general is insufficient for pleading a cause of action under the contract theory of professional malpractice. An action for medical malpractice based on contract must allege an express promise to provide medical treatment or achieve a specific result. Here, the complaint of the petitioner states a categorical declaration of the case being brought on the basis of a medical contract. However, the rest of the allegations and arguments unmistakably show that the cause of action is premised upon the law and jurisprudence on damages in general and medical negligence under the Civil Code provisions on quasi-delict. There is no mention at all of any express promise on the part of the defendant doctors to provide medical treatment or achieve a specific result. The cause of action is one for medical malpractice premised on the breach of the defendant doctors’ professional duties of skill and case, or their improper performance by a physician surgeon, whereby the plaintiff suffered injury and damages. Petitioner's attempt to present a hybrid tort and contract claim arising from the negligent acts of his physicians thus fails. Apparently, inclusion of the contract approach to seek damages from the defendant physicians was an afterthought intended to revive a stale claim. Petitioner's cause of action accrued on September 15, 2010, the day Dr. Uyloan and Dr. Ojeda performed the operation on his gallbladder. Clearly, the filing of the case against said physicians on November 10, 2015, is already barred by prescription.