[G.R. No. 175540. April 7, 2014.] DR. FILOTEO A. ALANO, petitioner, v. !ENAIDA "AG#D$LOG"AO, repon%ent.
PERALTA, J p: FA&T'( 1 . Plaint Plaintif ifff-appe appell llee ee Zenaid Zenaidaa MagudMagud-Logm Logmao ao is the mother mother of deeas deeases es Arnelit Arnelito o Logmai Logmai.. !efendant-appellant !r. "iloteo Alano is the E#euti$e !iretor of the %ational &idne' (nstitute )%&(* + . n Marh Marh 1, 1 at :/0pm, :/0pm, Arnel Arnelito ito Logmao Logmao,, 1 'ears 'ears old, old, as 2rought 2rought to the East East A$enue Medial 3enter in 4.3. 2' to sideal5 $endors ho allegedl' sa him fall from the o$erpass near "armer6s Mar5et, 3u2ao. 7e ga$e his name Arenelito Logmao. 8 . (n the ER, Arnelit Arnelito o as onsious onsious and as as inter$ieed inter$ieed 2' !r. !r. Paterno Paterno 3a2rera, 3a2rera, the dut' dut' resident ph'siian. The patient6s data sheet prepared 2' !r. 3a2rera identified the patient as Angelito Lugmoso )and not Arnelito Logmao* 9 . At around around 9am on Marh +, 10, the patient patient de$el de$eloped oped genera generali lied ed seiure seiures, s, and his onditi ondition on progre progressi ssi$el' $el' deteri deteriora orated ted.. Admis Admissio sion n to the (3; and meh meh $ent. $ent. . Misa, Transplant 3oordinator, as as5ed to loate the patient6s famil' 2' enlisting polie and media assistane. ? . !r. na, o2ser$ed o2ser$ed that the patient6 patient6ss 2rain 2rain as so se$ere that that it manifested manifested s'mptoms s'mptoms of 2rain death. 7e re@uested to ondut a tissue t'ping and tissue ross-mathing e#amination on the patient, this as doen on the 2asis that if the deeased patient is found to 2e a suita2le organ donor and has his famil'6s onsent, the organs ould 2e har$ested and transplanted promptl' to an' of the ompati2le 2enefiiaries. . At a2out a2out am am of Marh Marh 8, 1, 1, !r. !r. na na as as info inform rmed ed that that Lugmo Lugmoso so had 2een 2een pronouned 2rain dead. A repeat EEB reording e#hi2ited a flat traing, there2' onfirming that Lugmoso as 2rain dead. . As the e#tensi$e e#tensi$e searh searh for the relati$es relati$es of Lugmos Lugmoso o 'ielded 'ielded no positi$e positi$e result result and time 2eing of the essene in the suess of organ transplantation. !r. na re@uested !r. !r. "iloteo A. Alano to authorie the remo$al of speifi organs from the 2od' of Lugmoso for transplantation purposes. !r. na, li5eise re@uested !r. Li@uete to seure permission for the planned organ retrie$eal and transplantation from the Medio Legal ffie of the %>(. . !r. Alano Alano issued to !r. !r. na a memorandum memorandum to ma5e ertain ertain that all reasona2l reasona2lee efforts efforts are e#erted to loate the patient6s relati$es, it further stated that permission or authoriation to retrie$e or remo$e the internal organs of the deeased and to transplant said organs to an' ompati2le patient ho ma' 2e in need of said organs to li$e and sur$i$e onl' if the pro$ision of RA 89 and P! /? 10. !es !espit pite eff effort orts to lo loat atee the the lat latter6 ter6ss rel relat atii$es, $es, no no one one resp respon onde ded. d. At At 8:9/ 8:9/ in in the the afternoon of Marh 8, 1, a medial team onduted the remo$al of the heat, 5idne's, panreas, li$er and spleen of Lugmoso.
11.n Marh 11, 1, the %&( issued a press release announing its first suessful dou2le organ transplantation. Aida !ormal , a relati$e of Arnelito6s mother, sa the nes on TC that the donor as an 1'r old 2o' hose remains ere laid at La "uneraria ro in 43, sine the name of the donor sounded li5e Arnelito Logmao. Zenaida and her hildren ent to the funeral home here the' ere a2le to retrie$e Arnelito6s 2od'. 1+ . Zenaida filed ith the RT3 a omplaint for damages against the dotors of %&(. 18. The RT3 rendered its deision finding !r. Alano lia2le for damages. The trial ourt found !r. Alano negligent for authoriing the retrie$al of the deeased patient6s organs ithout first e#erting reasona2le efforts to loate his relati$es. n appeal, the 3A affirmed the RT3 deision. 7ene the petition. 19 . !r. Alano no, argues that there as no legal 2asis for the 3A to hold him lia2le for damages sine there as no finding that he as the pro#imate ause of the inDur' or damage sustained 2' Zenaida. 7e also argues that he ated in good faith and pursuant to la hen he issued the authoriation for the organ retrie$al. I''#E( =hether !r. Alano should 2e held lia2le for his alleged negligene in authoriing the remo$al and retrie$al of Arnelito6s internal organs ithout Zenaida6s onsent. )ELD( %o.
A areful reading of the a2o$e shos that petitioner instruted his su2ordinates to ma5e ertain that all reasona2le efforts are e#erted to loate the patientFs ne#t of 5in, e$en enumerating a's in hih to ensure that noties of the death of the patient ould reah said relati$es. (t also learl' stated that permission or authoriation to retrie$e and remo$e the internal organs of the deeased as 2eing gi$en %LG (" the pro$isions of the applia2le la had 2een omplied ith. (. Thus, there an 2e no a$il that petitioner emplo'ed reasona2le means to disseminate notifiations intended to reah the relati$es of the deeased. The onl' @uestion that remains pertains to the suffiien' of time alloed for noties to reah the relati$es of the deeased. (f respondent failed to immediatel' reei$e notie of her sonFs death 2eause the noties did not properl' state the name or identit' of the deeased, fault annot 2e laid at petitionerFs door. The trial and appellate ourts found that it as the EAM3, ho had the opportunit' to asertain the
name of the deeased, ho reorded the rong information regarding the deeasedFs identit' to %&(. The %&( ould not ha$e o2tained the information a2out his name from the patient, 2eause as found 2' the loer ourts, the deeased as alread' unonsious 2' the time he as 2rought to the %&(. Ceril', the 3ourt annot, in onsiene, agree ith the loer ourt. "inding petitioner lia2le for damages is improper. (t should 2e emphasied that the internal organs of the deeased ere remo$ed onl' after he had 2een delared 2rain deadH thus, the emotional pain suffered 2' respondent due to the death of her son annot in an' a' 2e attri2uted to petitioner. %either an the 3ourt find e$idene on reord to sho that respondentFs emotional suffering at the sight of the pitiful state in hih she found her sonFs lifeless 2od' 2e ategoriall' attri2uted to petitionerFs ondut. DI'*O'ITI+E( =7ERE"RE, the petition is BRA%TE!. The !eision of the 3ourt of Appeals, dated Marh 81, +00?, is RECER
( agree ith the ponenia that !r. Alano should not 2e found lia2le, 2ut ( ta5e this opportunit' to further e#pound on the issues presented to this ourt. !r. Alano6s ats ere not re5lessm negligent or unreasona2le. (t as not his ats that aused the alleged inDur' to the deeased patientFs relati$es. 3onsidering the irumstanes that he had to fae, the searh he ordered for the deeased patientFs relati$es ere all that ordinar' prudene re@uired. 7is retrie$al of the deeased patientFs organs as done legall' and after alloing a reasona2le time to lapse. The onlusions of the trial ourt and the appellate ourt ere, therefore, orretl' re$ersed and set aside. The loer ourts are all in agreement that !r. AlanoFs partiipation in the organ retrie$al onstituted a @uasi-delit under Artile +1? of the 3i$il 3ode for hih he should 2e lia2le for damages. This onlusion is erroneous. ;nder this la, onsent to organ retrie$al after the patientFs death ma' 2e gi$en first and foremost 2' the patientFs nearest relati$e or guardian at the time of death. (t is onl' in the e$ent that these relati$es annot 2e ontated despite reasona2le efforts that the head of the hospital or institution ha$ing ustod' of the 2od' ma' gi$e onsent for organ retrie$al on 2ehalf of the patient. "ailing this, lia2ilit' for damages arises. 3onsidering that Repu2li At %o. 89, as amended, does not pro$ide a remed' in ase of $iolation, an appliation of the dotrine of informed onsent $is-I-$is Artile +0 of the 3i$il 3ode ma' gi$e rise to an ation for damages. (n this ase, !r. Alano must first 2e shon to ha$e ated illfull' and negligentl' to the damage and preDudie of Zenaida. Petitioner did not illfull' or negligentl', in a manner ontrar' to la, authorie the retrie$al of the organs
!r. Alano did not $iolate the pro$isions of the la illfull' or negligentl'. (n aordane ith the re@uirements of the third paragraph of
information pro$ided to them 2' East A$enue Medial 3enter onsidering the urgen' of ArnelitoFs situation. The erroneous information on the patient data sheet as e$entuall' the ause of the failure of the Transplant 3oordinator to loate Zenaida. The radio and tele$ision announements, together ith the nespaper ad$ertisements, ere rendered futile 2' the fat that the' ere simpl' loo5ing for the rong person. E$en if the Transplant 3oordinator spent more than +9 hours loo5ing for the deeased patientFs relati$es, it as dou2tful hether the' ou ld ha$e 2een found, onsidering that the' ere loo5ing for the relati$es of Angelito Lugmoso, not Arnelito Logmao. Respondent should not 2e aarded damages Moral damages ere aarded 2' the loer ourts on the 2asis that it as !r. AlanoFs alleged negligene hih aused the emotional suffering of Zenaida. This is erroneous.
