Like many nations, the Philippines relies on a healthcare system founded on trust and expertise. When patients seek medical help, they entrust their health in the hands of healthcare professionals. But what happens when this trust is broken due to negligence?
The Philippines does not have a special law dealing specifically with medical malpractice. Instead, laws governing incidents involving medical malpractice are scattered in different laws, old enough that our parents were not even born yet. For one, the Civil Code of the Philippines, which took effect in 1950, is a codification of various civil laws, including quasi-delicts or acts causing damage due to negligence. In particular, Article 1173 of the Civil Code of the Philippines defines negligence as the “omission of that degree of diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds to the circumstance of the persons, time, and place.” This provision of the law generally serves as the basis for holding healthcare providers accountable and directs them to pay compensation when there is no pre-existing contractual agreement beyond the standard doctor-patient relationship.
Apart from the aforesaid Civil Code provision, there is an older law that governs medical malpractice. In 1930, the Philippine government enacted the Revised Penal Code. Like the Civil Code of the Philippines, the Revised Penal Code is a codification of penal laws wherein a violation could lead a person to jail. Specifically, Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code may be the basis for finding a healthcare provider criminally liable, often called “reckless imprudence resulting in physical injuries or homicide”. However, proving a healthcare provider for violating a crime involves a higher form of evidence to arrive at a conviction, proof beyond reasonable doubt. Otherwise, the accused could be acquitted. Nonetheless, the Courts could order the latter to pay damages as civil liability.
Finally, a victim of medical malpractice may file an administrative complaint with the Professional Regulation Commission to investigate complaints against licensed professionals. Unlike the consequences of civil or criminal complaints alluded to above, the consequence of a successful prosecution in administrative cases could lead to the license of a healthcare provider revoked or suspended.
Nonetheless, the guiding principles for medical malpractice cases are found in Supreme Court rulings. These decisions set precedents for how such cases are managed. A key concept is the “reasonably prudent doctor” standard, where courts assess a healthcare professional’s actions against what a doctor with similar qualifications and experience would have done in the same situation. This standard acknowledges the complexities of medical practice and avoids penalizing honest errors in judgment.
Landmark cases have further defined the boundaries of medical malpractice. For instance, in De Jesus vs. Dr. Romeo Uyloan, G.R. No. 234851, 15 February 2022, the Court established four elements that a patient must prove to win a case:
- Duty of Care: A doctor-patient relationship existed, creating a duty to provide a standard of care.
- Breach of Duty: The medical professional deviated from this standard.
- Causation: The breach directly caused the patient’s injury.
- Damages: The patient suffered actual harm due to the negligence.
Proving these elements is not an easy task to undertake. Medical expertise is often required to establish a deviation from the standard of care. In Dr. Solidum vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 192123, 10 March 2014, the Supreme Court highlighted the necessity of expert medical witness testimony to determine if a doctor acted negligently. Unfortunately, the scarcity of such witnesses can significantly hinder a patient’s case.
There are additional challenges that persist, like the lack of a dedicated law creates uncertainty for both patients and healthcare providers. The burden of proof rests heavily on the patient, and the lengthy litigation process can be discouraging. Moreover, the absence of mandatory medical malpractice insurance in the Philippines leaves many patients struggling to recover compensation for their injuries.
Despite these obstacles, the pursuit of justice in medical malpractice cases continues. The case of Dr. Casumpang and SJDH vs. Nelson Cortejo, G.R. Nos. 17127, 171217, 171228, 11 March 2015 is a notable example. Here, the Supreme Court held a hospital liable for a patient’s death due to a medication error, signifying that the legal system can hold healthcare providers accountable for their actions.
Nevertheless, addressing the complex issue of medical malpractice in the Philippines is multifaceted. While the Civil Code, the Revised Penal Code, and Supreme Court cases provide a framework for claims, the absence of a dedicated medical malpractice law presents challenges for both patients and healthcare providers. Understandably, legislating a standalone medical malpractice law could potentially lead doctors and physicians to be overly defensive thereby affecting the quality of the country’s healthcare system. However, there should be a balance between a patient’s rights and a doctor’s duties and obligations to the public. In any case, landmark cases of the Supreme Court show that the legal system in the Philippines can deliver justice, offering hope to those harmed by medical negligence, or absolve those who are innocent.
