3 Atienza v Board of Medicine
which can result in the deprivation of a professional license, a property right.- NO
FACTS:
1. Editha Sioson went to Rizal Medical Center (RMC) for check-up because of
her lumbar pains. 4 years after, due to the same problem, she was referred
to Dr. Pedro Lantin III of RMC. The latter ordered several diagnostic
laboratory tests, which revealed that her right kidney is normal, but that
her left kidney is non-functioning and non-visualizing. Thus, she underwent
a kidney operation.
2. Edithat’s husband, Romeo (complainant), filed a complaint for gross
negligence before the Board of Medicine (BOM) against the doctors who
allegedly participated in the kidney operation: Dr, dela Vega, Dr. Lantin, Dr.
Florendo, and petitioner Atienza, alleging that the aforementioned
removed Editha’s fully functional right kidney, instead of the left one.
3. The complaint was heard by the BOM. After Romeo presented his
evidence, Editha filed her formal offer of documentary evidence for the
purpose of proving that her kidneys were both in their proper anatomical
locations at the time she was operated.
a. Ex. A: the certified photocopy of the X-ray Request form dated
December 12, 1996 on which are handwritten entries which are
the interpretation of the results of the ultrasound examination;
b. Ex. B: he certified photo copy of the X-ray request form dated
January 30, 1997 on which are handwritten entries which are the
interpretation of the results of the examination;
c. Ex. C: the certified photocopy of the X-ray request form dated
March 16, 1996, on which are handwritten entries which are the
interpretation of the results of the examination;
d. Ex. D: the certified photocopy of the X-ray request form dated
May 20, 1999, which appears to be the draft of the typewritten
final report of the same examination.
4. Atienza filed his comments/objections to the formal offer of exhibits,
alleging that the same are inadmissible for being mere photocopies, not
being properly identified and authenticated, and being intended to
establish matters which are hearsay. He added that they are incompetent
to prove the purpose for which they are offered.
5. The formal offer of documentary exhibits was admitted by the BOM.
6. Atienza moved for reconsideration, but was denied on the ground that ithe
court should first admit the evidence offered to determine its relevancy
and probative value.
7. Atienza filed a PetCert under Rule 65 with the CA, but it was dismissed.
8. Atienza appealed to the SC, arguing that the exhibits formally offered by
Editha: a) violate the best evidence rule, 2) have not been properly
identified and authenticated, c) are complete hearsay, and d) are
incompetent to prove their purpose. Thus, inadmissible.
ISSUE: WON the CA erred in admitting incompetent and inadmissible evidence
RULING:
1. The rules of evidence are not strictly applied in proceedings before
administrative bodies such as the BOM. Although trial courts are enjoined
to observe strict enforcement of the rules of evidence, in connection with
evidence which may appear to be of doubtful relevancy, incompetency, or
admissibility, the Court has held that it is the safest policy to be liberal, not
rejecting them on doubtful or technical grounds, but admitting them
unless plainly irrelevant, immaterial or incompetent, for the reason that
their rejection places them beyond the consideration of the court, if they
are thereafter found relevant or competent; on the other hand, their
admission, if they turn out later to be irrelevant or incompetent, can easily
be remedied by completely discarding them or ignoring them.
2. Admissibility of evidence refers to the question of whether or not the
circumstance (or evidence) is to be considered at all, while probative value
of evidence refers to the question of whether or not it proves an issue.
3. The admission of the exhibits did not prejudice the substantive rights of
the accused because the fact sought to be proved thereby, that the 2
kidneys of Editha were in their proper anatomical location at the time she
was operated on, is a disputable presumption under Rule 131, Sec. 3 of the
Rules of Court (that things have happened according to the ordinary course
of nature and the ordinary habits of life). Moreover, the fact sought to be
established by the admission of the exhibits need not be proved as it is
covered by mandatory judicial notice.
4. The rules of evidence are merely the means for ascertaining the truth
respecting a matter of fact. They likewise provide for some facts which are
established and need not be proved, such as those covered by judicial
notice, both mandatory and discretionary. Laws of nature involving the
physical sciences, specifically biology, include the structural make-up and
composition of living things such as human beings. In this case, the Court
may take judicial notice that Editha’s kidneys before, and at the time of,
her operation, as with most human beings, were in their proper anatomical
locations.
5. The best evidence rule is inapplicable in this case as the subject of inquiry
in the case is not the fact sought to be established by the evidence offered,
especially considering that the latter is a matter of mandatory judicial
notice and need not be proven by evidence. Moreover, Dr. Aquino of the
Records Office of RMC testified that the originals cannot anymore be
produced.