Atienza v.
Board of Medicine
incompetent, can easily be remedied by
completely discarding them or ignoring them.
Facts:
1. Due to her lumbar pains, private respondent
Editha Sioson went to Rizal Medical Center
(RMC) for check-up on February 1995.
2. Sometime in 1999, due to the same
problem, she was referred to Dr. Pedro Lantin III
of RMC who, accordingly, ordered several
diagnostic laboratory tests. She underwent
kidney operation after the tests revealed that
her left kidney is non-functioning and nonvisualizing.
3. Private respondents husband Romeo Sioson
then filed a complaint for gross negligence
and/or incompetence before the Board of
Medicine for the removal of Edithas fully
functional right kidney, instead of the left,
against the doctors who allegedly participated
in the kidney operation, namely: Dr. Judd dela
Vega, Dr. Pedro Lantin, III, Dr. Gerardo Antonio
Florendo and petitioner Rico Rommel Atienza.
4. After Romeo Sioson presented his evidence,
Editha filed her formal offer of documentary
evidence,
which
consisted
of
certified
photocopies of X-Ray request forms where
interpretation of the ultrasound results were
written, for the purpose of proving that her
kidneys were both in their proper anatomical
locations at the time she was operated.
5. Petitioner filed his comments/objections to
Edithas formal offer of exhibits, alleging that
said exhibits are inadmissible because the
same are mere photocopies, not properly
identified and authenticated, intended to
establish matters which are hearsay, and
incompetent to prove the purpose for which
they are offered.
6. The formal offer of documentary exhibits of
private respondent was admitted by the BOM.
Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the
Order, which was denied on the ground that
BOM should first admit the evidence being
offered so that it can determine its probative
value when it decides the case, and later on
determine whether the evidence is relevant or
not.
7. Disagreeing with the BOM, Atienza filed a
petition for certiorari with the CA. The CA
dismissed the petition for certiorari for lack of
merit. Hence, the present petition for review on
certiorari.
Issue: W/N the exhibits are inadmissible in
evidence
Held: No. Petition denied.
To begin with, it is well-settled that 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, we have 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
Admissibility of evidence refers to the question
of whether or not the circumstance (or
evidence) is to be considered at all.
On the other hand, the probative value of
evidence refers to the question of whether or
not it proves an issue.
Second, petitioners insistence that the
admission of Edithas exhibits violated his
substantive rights leading to the loss of his
medical license is misplaced in light of Section
20, Article I of the Professional Regulation
Commission Rules of Procedure.
As pointed out by the appellate court, the
admission of the exhibits did not prejudice the
substantive rights of petitioner because, at any
rate, the fact sought to be proved thereby, that
the two kidneys of Editha were in their proper
anatomical locations at the time she was
operated on, is presumed under Section 3, Rule
131 of the Rules of Court on Disputable
presumptions.
The exhibits are certified photocopies of X-ray
Request Forms filed in connection with Edithas
medical case, which contained handwritten
entries interpreting the results of the
examination.
The fact sought to be established by the
admission of Edithas exhibits, that her
kidneys were both in their proper anatomical
locations at the time of her operation, need
not be proved as it is covered by mandatory
judicial notice. These exhibits do not constitute
hearsay evidence of the anatomical locations
of Edithas kidneys because the position and
removal may still be established through a
belated ultrasound or x-ray of her abdominal
area.
Contrary to the assertion of petitioner, the best
evidence rule is also inapplicable. Section 3 of
Rule 130 provides:
1. Best Evidence Rule
Sec. 3. Original document must be produced;
exceptions. When the subject of inquiry is the
contents of a document, no evidence shall be
admissible other than the original document
itself, except in the following cases:
(a) When the original has been lost or
destroyed, or cannot be produced in court,
without bad faith on the part of the offeror;
(b) When the original is in the custody or under
the control of the party against whom the
evidence is offered, and the latter fails to
produce it after reasonable notice;
(c) When the original consists of numerous
accounts or other documents which cannot be
examined in court
without great loss of time and the fact sought
to be established from them is only the general
result of the whole; and
(d) When the original is a public record in the
custody of a public officer or is recorded in a
public office.
The subject of inquiry in this case is whether
respondent doctors before the BOM are liable
for gross negligence in removing the right
functioning kidney of Editha instead of the left
non-functioning kidney, not the proper
anatomical locations of Edithas kidneys. As
previously discussed, the proper anatomical
locations of Edithas kidneys at the time of her
operation at the RMC may be established not
only through the exhibits offered in evidence.
In fact, the introduction of secondary evidence,
such as copies of the exhibits, is allowed,
especially as one of the witnesses testified that
the Records Office of RMC no longer had the
originals of the exhibits because [it]
transferred from the previous building, x x x to
the new building and ultimately, the originals
cannot be produced.
