Formal Offer of Exhibits - Procedure

ATIENZA VS BOARD OF MEDICINE (BOM)
G.R. No. 177407

February 9, 2011
Due to her lumbar pains, private respondent Editha Sioson went to Rizal
Medical Center (RMC) for check-up on February 4, 1995. Sometime in
1999, due to the same problem, she was referred to Dr. Pedro Lantin III of
RMC who, accordingly, ordered several diagnostic laboratory tests. The
tests revealed that her right kidney is normal. It was ascertained, however,
that her left kidney is non-functioning and non-visualizing. Thus, she
underwent kidney operation in September, 1999.
On February 18, 2000, private respondents husband, Romeo Sioson (as

complainant), filed a complaint for gross negligence and/or incompetence
before the [BOM] against the doctors who allegedly participated in the
fateful kidney operation, namely: Dr. Judd dela Vega, Dr. Pedro Lantin, III,
Dr. Gerardo Antonio Florendo and petitioner Rico Rommel Atienza.
It was alleged in the complaint that the gross negligence and/or

incompetence committed by the said doctors, including petitioner, consists
of the removal of private respondents fully functional right kidney, instead
of the left non-functioning and non-visualizing kidney.
The complaint was heard by the [BOM]. After complainant Romeo Sioson
presented his evidence, private respondent Editha Sioson, also named as
complainant there, filed her formal offer of documentary evidence.
Attached to the formal offer of documentary evidence are her Exhibits A to
D, which she offered for the purpose of proving that her kidneys were both
in their proper anatomical locations at the time she was operated. She
described her exhibits, as follows: (EXHIBIT A, B, etc.)
Petitioner filed his comments/objections to private respondents [Editha

Siosons] formal offer of exhibits. He alleged that said exhibits are
inadmissible because the same are mere photocopies, not properly
identified and authenticated, and intended to establish matters which are
hearsay. He added that the exhibits are incompetent to prove the purpose
for which they are offered.
The formal offer of documentary exhibits of private respondent [Editha
Sioson] was admitted by the [BOM] per its Order dated May 26, 2004. It
reads:
The Formal Offer of Documentary Evidence of [Romeo Sioson], the

Comments/Objections of [herein petitioner] Atienza, [therein respondents]
De la Vega and Lantin, and the Manifestation of [therein] respondent
Florendo are hereby ADMITTED by the [BOM] for whatever purpose they
may serve in the resolution of this case.
Let the hearing be set on July 19, 2004 all at 1:30 p.m. for the reception of
the evidence of the respondents.
SO ORDERED.
Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the abovementioned Order

basically on the same reasons stated in his comment/objections to the
formal offer of exhibits.
The [BOM] denied the motion for reconsideration of petitioner in its Order
dated October 8, 2004. It concluded that it should first admit the evidence
being offered so that it can determine its probative value when it decides
the case. According to the Board, it can determine whether the evidence is
relevant or not if it will take a look at it through the process of admission. x
x x.[3]
Disagreeing with the BOM, and as previously adverted to, Atienza filed a
petition for certiorari with the CA, assailing the BOMs Orders which
admitted Editha Siosons (Edithas) Formal Offer of Documentary Evidence.
The CA dismissed the petition for certiorari for lack of merit.
Petitioner argues that the exhibits formally offered in evidence by Editha:

(1) violate the best evidence rule; (2) have not been properly identified and
authenticated; (3) are completely hearsay; and (4) are incompetent to
prove their purpose. Thus, petitioner contends that the exhibits are
inadmissible evidence.
Admissibility of evidence refers to the question of whether or not
the circumstance (or evidence) is to be considered at all. On the
other hand, the probative value of evidence refers to the
question of whether or not it proves an issue.

Formal Offer of Exhibits - Procedure

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Formal Offer of Exhibits - Procedure

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Formal Offer of Exhibits - Procedure

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ATIENZA VS BOARD OF MEDICINE (BOM)

G.R. No. 177407

On February 18, 2000, private respondents husband, Romeo Sioson (as

It was alleged in the complaint that the gross negligence and/or

Petitioner filed his comments/objections to private respondents [Editha

The Formal Offer of Documentary Evidence of [Romeo Sioson], the

Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the abovementioned Order

Petitioner argues that the exhibits formally offered in evidence by Editha:

You might also like