Umali VS Dr. Cruz - Case Digest

UMALI VS DR.
NENEVETCH CRUZ
FACTS:
Lydia Umali was examined by Dr. Cruz who found a myoma (benign tumor) in her uterus, and scheduled
an operation for the removal of her uterus. Rowena Umali accompanied her mother to the hospital for
the operation. Rowena noticed that the clinic was untidy, so she tried to persuade her mother not to
proceed with the operation. On the day of the operation, Rowena asked Dr. Cruz if the operation could
be postponed but Dr. Cruz said that the operation must go on.
The anesthesiologist, Dr. Ercillo asked the relatives of Lydia to buy tagamet ampules and blood to which
they complied. After the operation, Rowena noticed that her mother was gasping. They discovered that
the oxygen supply had run out so the family had to rush out to buy oxygen. Later in the evening, she
went into shock and her blood pressure dropped. She was then transferred to another hospital so she
could be connected to a respirator and further examined. However, this transfer was without the
consent of the relatives, who only found out about it when an ambulance came to take Lydia to the
other hospital.
In the new hospital, she was re-operated upon by Dr. Cruz and Dr. Ercillo because blood was oozing out
from her incision. They summoned Dr. Angeles, Ob-Gyne head of the new hospital, but when he arrived,
Lydia was already in shock and possibly dead (BP: 0/0). Dr. Angeles told Drs. Cruz and Ercillo that there
was nothing he could do. Lydia died while Dr. Cruz was closing her abdominal wall. Immediate cause of
death is shock; disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) as antecedent cause.
Dr. Cruz and Dr. Ercillo were charged with reckless imprudence and negligence resulting in homicide of
Lydia Umali. The Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) found Dr. Ercillo not guilty for insufficiency of
evidence against her, but held Dr. Cruz responsible for Umali’s death. RTC and CA affirmed MTCC.
ISSUE:
WON the circumstances are sufficient to sustain a judgment of conviction against Dr. Cruz for reckless
imprudence resulting in homicide.
RULING:
No. To sustain the convict, an expert testimony stating that Dr. Cruz did not observed the standard care
observed by other members of the profession.
This Court, however, holds differently and finds the foregoing circumstances insufficient to sustain a
judgment of conviction against the petitioner for the crime of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide.
Whether or not a physician has committed an "inexcusable lack of precaution" in the treatment of his
patient is to be determined according to the standard of care observed by other members of the
profession in good standing under similar circumstances bearing in mind the advanced state of the
profession at the time of treatment or the present state of medical science. . It is in this aspect of
medical malpractice that expert testimony is essential to establish not only the standard of care of the
profession but also that the physician's conduct in the treatment and care falls below such standard.
Further, inasmuch as the causes of the injuries involved in malpractice actions are determinable only in
the light of scientific knowledge, it has been recognized that expert testimony is usually necessary to
support the conclusion as to causation.
Immediately apparent from a review of the records of this case is the absence of any expert testimony
on the matter of the standard of care employed by other physicians of good standing in the conduct of
similar operations. The prosecution's expert witnesses in the persons of Dr. Floresto Arizala and Dr.
Nieto Salvador, Jr. of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) only testified as to the possible cause of
death but did not venture to illuminate the court on the matter of the standard of care that petitioner
should have exercised.
All three courts below bewail the inadequacy of the facilities of the clinic and its untidiness; the lack of
provisions such as blood, oxygen, and certain medicines; the failure to subject the patient to a cardio-
pulmonary test prior to the operation; the omission of any form of blood typing before transfusion; and
even the subsequent transfer of Lydia to the San Pablo Hospital and the reoperation performed on her
by the petitioner. But while it may be true that the circumstances pointed out by the courts below
seemed beyond cavil to constitute reckless imprudence on the part of the surgeon, this conclusion is still
best arrived at not through the educated surmises nor conjectures of laymen, including judges, but by
the unquestionable knowledge of expert witnesses.

Umali VS Dr. Cruz - Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Umali VS Dr. Cruz - Case Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Umali VS Dr. Cruz - Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UMALI VS DR.

You might also like