TL;DR — Ruling
WHEREFORE, the instant case against all the defendants is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The counterclaims of all the defendants are likewise DISMISSED. SO DECIDED . [21] (Emphasis in the original) The trial court ruled that Dr.
WHEREFORE, the instant case against all the defendants is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The counterclaims of all the defendants are likewise DISMISSED. SO DECIDED . [21] (Emphasis in the original) The trial court ruled that Dr. Aventura was an ostensible agent of the PHC at the time of Quintin's admission, treatment, and death. Evidence showed that the PHC clothed Dr. Aventura with apparent authority, leading Elpidio to believe that Dr. Aventura was connected to, or an agent of, the PHC. However, the trial court found no medical malpractice or negligence on the part of Dr. Aventura. The Autopsy Report issued by Dr. Fortun stated that Quintin died due to complications of hypertensive atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, and the manner of his death was classified as natural. Also, Elpidio could not dispute Quintin's signature on the two consent forms, i.e., Consent for Endovascular Stenting and the Consent to Operation, Administration of Anesthesia, and the Rendering of Other Medical Services. The trial court held that given Dr. Aventura's qualifications and years of expertise, there is a presumption that in proper cases, he takes the necessary precautions and employs the best knowledge and skill in attending to his patients. [22] Further, the trial court ruled that Elpidio failed to show that FAMED participated in the stent used on Quintin. It was merely one of Medtronic's distributors in the Philippines. Even if the stent used on Quintin was faulty, Elpidio failed to prove that FAMED had a hand in manufacturing the stent. As for Medtronic and Dr. Verhoeven, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over them since they were not properly served with summons. [23] The trial court also ruled that defendants were not entitled to damages. The dismissal of the Complaint did not make Elpidio's act unlawful, which would subject him to the payment of moral damages to them. Elpidio filed the Complaint based on his honest belief that the death of his father was due to the negligence of defendants. The trial court also denied defendants' claim for exemplary damages and attorney's fees for lack of basis. [24] CA RULING On appeal, [25] the CA affirmed the trial court. [26] It ruled that the answering defendants did not commit medical malpractice or negligence. The expert opinions of Dr. Edgar S. Tuazon (Dr. Tuazon) and Dr. Peter R. Figueroa (Dr. Figueroa), who specialize in cardiovascular surgerythe same field of medicine as Dr. Aventurarevealed that Dr. Aventura gave sound medical advice and treatment to Quintin. They also testified that the stroke experienced by Quintin, which led to his death, was not a result of medical negligence but was one of the risks involved in a stenting procedure, regardless of whether the device was successfully deployed on Quintin or not. [27] The CA held that there was adequate disclosure of material risks inherent in the stenting procedure. Quintin consented to the procedure, as shown in his signed consent forms. Further