G.R. No. 234851 , February 15, 2022
PAOLO ANTHONY C. DE JESUS, PETITIONER, VS. DR. ROMEO F. UYLOAN, SUBSTITUTED BY HIS WIFE SALVACION UYLOAN, ASIAN HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER AND DR. JOHN FRANCOIS OJEDA, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

On September 15, 2010, petitioner Paolo Anthony De Jesus underwent a cholecystectomy at Asian Hospital and Medical Center (AHMC) performed by Dr. Romeo Uyloan and Dr. John Francois Ojeda. He alleged he consented to a laparoscopic procedure but the doctors performed an open cholecystectomy without his approval. After discharge, he experienced severe pain and bile leakage. Subsequent tests revealed his common bile duct, not the cystic duct, had been cut and clipped during the initial surgery, necessitating corrective surgery on November 19, 2010. On November 10, 2015, petitioner filed a Complaint “For Damages under Articles 1170 and 1173 of the New Civil Code” against the doctors and AHMC, alleging breach of their professional duties under their “medical contract” and corporate negligence. Respondents moved to dismiss, arguing the action, based on quasi-delict/medical negligence, had prescribed under Article 1146 of the Civil Code (four-year period) as it was filed over five years from the date of the operation. The Regional Trial Court denied the motions, holding prescription was evidentiary. The Court of Appeals reversed, dismissing the complaint for being time-barred, ruling the cause of action was based on medical negligence prescribing in four years.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in ruling that the trial court gravely abused its discretion in denying the motions to dismiss on the ground of prescription.

RULING

No, the Court of Appeals did not commit reversible error. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s decision dismissing the complaint for being filed out of time. The Court held that the allegations in the complaint, while mentioning a “medical contract,” unequivocally set forth a cause of action for medical negligence or malpractice, which is a quasi-delict. The core allegations concerned the doctors’ failure to exercise the requisite standard of care and diligence in performing the surgery, resulting in injury. The Court reiterated that a breach of the physician’s duty to exercise the standard of care required by his profession is actionable as a quasi-delict, and such actions prescribe in four years from the date of the negligent act (Article 1146, Civil Code). The cause of action accrued on September 15, 2010, the date of the botched surgery. The complaint filed on November 10, 2015, was beyond the four-year prescriptive period and was therefore time-barred. The Court distinguished actions based on contract requiring a specific result or express warranty, which were not pleaded in this case. The defense of prescription was apparent from the face of the complaint and was properly invoked in a motion to dismiss.