Garcia, Jr. v Salvador

GARCIA, JR. V. SALVADOR 

Topic: Owners and Managers of Establishments and Enterprises

DOCTRINE: Owners and operators of clinical laboratories have the duty to comply with statutes, as well as rules and regulations, purposely promulgated to protect and promote the health of the people by preventing the operation of substandard, improperly managed and inadequately supported clinical laboratories and by improving the quality of performance of clinical laboratory examinations. Their business is impressed with public interest, as such, high standards of performance are expected from them.

FACTS: Respondent, Ranida D. Salvador, started working as a trainee in the Accounting Department of Limay Bulk Handling Terminal, Inc. As a prerequisite for regular employment, she underwent a medical examination at the Community Diagnostic Center (CDC). Garcia who is a medical technologist, conducted the HBs Ag (Hepatitis B Surface Antigen) test and issued the test result indicating that Ranida was "HBs Ag: Reactive." The result bore the name and signature of Garcia as examiner and the rubber stamp signature of Castro as pathologist.

When Ranida submitted the test result to Dr. Sto. Domingo, the Company physician, the latter apprised her that the findings indicated that she is suffering from Hepatitis B, a liver disease. Thus, based on the medical report submitted by Sto. Domingo, the Company terminated Ranida’s employment for failing the physical examination.

When Ranida informed her father, Ramon, about her ailment, the latter suffered a heart attack and was confined at the Bataan Doctors Hospital. During Ramon’s confinement, Ranida underwent another HBs Ag test at the said hospital and the result indicated that she is non-reactive. She informed Sto. Domingo of this development but was told that the test conducted by CDC was more reliable because it used the Micro-Elisa Method.

Thus, Ranida went back to CDC for confirmatory testing, and this time, the Anti-HBs test conducted on her indicated a "Negative" result. Ranida also underwent another HBs Ag test at the Bataan Doctors Hospital using the Micro-Elisa Method. The result indicated that she was non-reactive.

Ranida submitted the test results from Bataan Doctors Hospital and CDC to the Executive Officer of the Company who requested her to undergo another similar test before her re-employment would be considered. Thus, CDC conducted another HBs Ag test on Ranida which indicated a "Negative" result. Ma. Ruby G. Calderon, Med-Tech Officer-in-Charge of CDC, issued a Certification correcting the initial result and explaining that the examining medical technologist (Garcia) interpreted the delayed reaction as positive or reactive. Thereafter, the Company rehired Ranida.

Ranida and Ramon filed a complaint for damages against petitioner Garcia and a purportedly unknown pathologist of CDC, claiming that, by reason of the erroneous interpretation of the results of Ranida’s examination, she lost her job and suffered serious mental anxiety, trauma and sleepless nights, while Ramon was hospitalized and lost business opportunities.

Garcia denied the allegations of gross negligence and incompetence and reiterated the scientific explanation for the "false positive" result of the first HBs Ag test. On the other hand, Castro claimed that as pathologist, he rarely went to CDC and only when a case was referred to him; that he did not examine Ranida; and that the test results bore only his rubber-stamp signature.

TC: Dismissed the complaint for insufficiency of evidence.

CA: Reversed the trial court’s ruling. Ordered Garcia to pay Ranida moral damages, exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. CA also found Garcia liable for damages for negligently issuing an erroneous HBs Ag result. On the other hand, it exonerated Castro for lack of participation in the issuance of the results.

ISSUE: WON Garcia should be held liable liable for damages to the respondents for issuing an incorrect HBsAG test result.

RULING: YES. Owners and operators of clinical laboratories have the duty to comply with statutes, as well as rules and regulations, purposely promulgated to protect and promote the health of the people by preventing the operation of substandard, improperly managed and inadequately supported clinical laboratories and by improving the quality of performance of clinical laboratory examinations. Their business is impressed with public interest, as such, high standards of performance are expected from them.

In fine, violation of a statutory duty is negligence. Where the law imposes upon a person the duty to do something, his omission or non-performance will render him liable to whoever may be injured thereby.

A clinical laboratory must be administered, directed and supervised by a licensed physician authorized by the Secretary of Health, like a pathologist who is specially trained in methods of laboratory medicine; that the medical technologist must be under the supervision of the pathologist or a licensed physician; and that the results of any examination may be released only to the requesting physician or his authorized representative upon the direction of the laboratory pathologist. These rules are intended for the protection of the public by preventing performance of substandard clinical examinations by laboratories whose personnel are not properly supervised. The public demands no less than an effective and efficient performance of clinical laboratory examinations through compliance with the quality standards set by laws and regulations.

The Supreme Court ruled that petitioner Garcia failed to comply with these standards. First, CDC is not administered, directed and supervised by a licensed physician as required by law, but by Ma. Ruby C. Calderon, a licensed Medical Technologist. Second, Garcia conducted the HBsAG test of respondent Ranida without the supervision of defendant-appellee Castro. Last, the disputed HBsAG test result was released to respondent Ranida without the authorization of defendant-appellee Castro.

Garcia may not have intended to cause the consequences which followed after the release of the HBsAG test result. However, his failure to comply with the laws and rules promulgated and issued for the protection of public safety and interest is failure to observe that care which a reasonably prudent health care provider would observe. Thus, his act or omission constitutes a breach of duty.

Indubitably, Ranida suffered injury as a direct consequence of Garcia’s failure to comply with the mandate of the laws and rules aforequoted. She was terminated from the service for failing the physical examination; suffered anxiety because of the diagnosis; and was compelled to undergo several more tests. All these could have been avoided had the proper safeguards been scrupulously followed in conducting the clinical examination and releasing the clinical report.

DISPOSITIVE: Respondents won. Affirmed the CA’s ruling.