Is Dr. Ampil Liable for Negligence and Malpractice?

1. Is Dr. Ampil Liable for Negligence and Malpractice?

2. all the major circumstances, taken together, as specified by the Court of Appeals, directly point to Dr. Ampil as the negligent party, thus: • First, it is not disputed that the surgeons used gauzes as sponges to control the bleeding of the patient during the surgical operation. • Second, immediately after the operation, the nurses who assisted in the surgery noted in their report that the ‘sponge count (was) lacking 2’; that such anomaly was ‘announced to surgeon’ and that a ‘search was done but to no avail’ prompting Dr. Ampil to ‘continue for closure’ x xx. • Third, after the operation, two (2) gauzes were extracted from the same spot of the body of Mrs. Agana where the surgery was performed.

3. It is settled that the leaving of sponges or other foreign substances in the wound after the incision has been closed is at least prima facie negligence by the operating surgeon.

4. Even if it has been shown that a surgeon was required by the urgent necessities of the case to leave a sponge in his patient’s abdomen, because of the dangers attendant upon delay, still, it is his legal duty to so inform his patient within a reasonable time thereafter by advising her of what he had been compelled to do. • Here, Dr. Ampil did not inform Natividad about the missing two pieces of gauze. Worse, he even misled her that the pain she was experiencing was the ordinary consequence of her operation.

5. Elements of Negligence Duty: • Dr. Ampil, as the lead surgeon, had the duty to remove all foreign objects, such as gauzes, from Natividad’s body before closure of the incision. • To inform Natividad about the gauze left during surgery. Breach: • Dr. Ampil’s failure to remove the gauze; and failure to inform the patient,

6. Elements of Negligence Injury: • Breach of duty by Dr. Ampil led patient to seek further examination by American doctors and another surgery. Proximate Causation: • Could be traced from his act of closing the incision despite the information given by the attending nurses that two pieces of gauze were still missing.

7. Is Dr. Fuentes Liable for Negligence and Malpractice?

8. The Aganas assailed the dismissal by the trial court of the case against Dr. Fuentes on the ground that it is contrary to the doctrine of res ipsaloquitur. • Res ipsaloqui"the thing speaks for itself." Stated differently, where the thing which caused the injury, without the fault of the injured, is under the exclusive control of the defendant and the injury is such that it should not have occurred if he, having such control used proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation that the injury arose from the defendant’s want of care, and the burden of proof is shifted to him to establish that he has observed due care and diligence.tur-

9. Requisites for the applicability of the doctrine of res ipsaloquitur are: • the occurrence of an injury; • the thing which caused the injury was under the control and management of the defendant; • the occurrence was such that in the ordinary course of things, would not have happened if those who had control or management used proper care; and • the absence of explanation by the defendant.

10. element of "control and management of the thing which caused the injury" to be wanting. Hence, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur will not lie. • duly established that Dr. Ampil was the lead surgeon during the operation of Natividad (“Captain of the Ship”).

11. In this jurisdiction, res ipsaloquitur is not a rule of substantive law, hence, does not per se create or constitute an independent or separate ground of liability, being a mere evidentiary rule. In other words, mere invocation and application of the doctrine does not dispense with the requirement of proof of negligence. Here, the negligence was proven to have been committed by Dr. Ampil and not by Dr. Fuentes.