Iuris Case Reader PH › Case digests › Casumpang v. Cortejo
Civil Law · Torts (medical malpractice)
A physician who selectively appreciates symptoms, ignores the patient's history and fails to order confirmatory tests is liable for medical negligence, and the hospital is solidarily liable under apparent authority.
Eleven-year-old Edmer Cortejo was brought to San Juan de Dios Hospital with fever, difficulty in breathing, and chest and stomach pain, and was diagnosed with bronchopneumonia by Dr. Livelo and later by Dr. Casumpang, the Fortune Care-accredited pediatrician assigned to him. Despite the mother's repeated reports of high fever without colds or cough, throat irritation, rapid breathing, and blood streaks in the sputum, Dr. Casumpang clung to his bronchopneumonia diagnosis using only a stethoscope and the chest x-ray. Only after the boy vomited blood twice did resident physician Dr. Miranda suspect dengue; blood tests that evening confirmed Dengue Hemorrhagic Fever. Edmer died hours after transfer to Makati Medical Center, and his father sued the two doctors and the hospital for damages.
Whether the petitioning doctors committed an inexcusable lack of precaution in diagnosing and treating the patient.
Dr. Casumpang was negligent. Although a wrong diagnosis is not by itself malpractice, his erroneous diagnosis resulted from negligent conduct: he selectively appreciated only some of the symptoms, ignored the mother's reports of fever without colds, throat irritation, chest and stomach pain and blood-streaked sputum, examined the boy for only a minute or two using only a stethoscope, did not check the throat or order confirmatory tests, and relied on an inconclusive chest x-ray. He also failed to undertake the proper medical management for dengue (oxygen inhalation, fluids, blood transfusion, close monitoring, hemostatics). Dr. Miranda, however, was not held liable, as it was her intervention that led to the correct diagnosis and she acted within the competence expected of a resident physician.
Whether a physician-patient relationship existed between the patient and each of the petitioning doctors so as to create a duty of care.
Yes as to both. The relationship is consensual but consent need not be express; it may be implied from the physician's affirmative action to diagnose and/or treat, or from participation in such diagnosis and treatment. Dr. Casumpang's relationship arose when Edmer's parents sought his services and he knowingly accepted, examined, diagnosed and treated the boy. Dr. Miranda's arose when, as resident physician doing rounds, she twice examined Edmer, participated in the diagnosis and prescribed a course of treatment.
Whether the hospital is solidarily liable with the negligent attending physician.
Yes. SJDH is solidarily liable with Dr. Casumpang. Even if consultants are not employees in the strict labor-law sense, a hospital that holds out a physician as its agent — by accrediting him, allowing him to use its facilities and assigning him to a patient who came to the hospital rather than to a chosen doctor — is estopped from denying the agency where the patient relied on that representation. Dr. Miranda being absolved, no vicarious liability attaches on her account.
Medical negligence exists where a physician, bound by a physician-patient relationship to observe the standard of care of a reasonably competent doctor under similar circumstances, selectively appreciates only some symptoms, disregards the patient's history and reported manifestations, and fails to order the confirmatory tests and management that reasonable prudence would require — and that failure proximately causes the patient's injury or death. A hospital that holds a physician out as its own is solidarily liable for his negligence.
💡 'That's the usual bronchopneumonia — no colds, no phlegm': the two-minute stethoscope visit that missed dengue and cost a boy's life.
The reader shows the complete text with this digest beside it, the Court's doctrine points, docket history and citing cases. Free for this case, no account needed.
Open in the reader →Read at the source text ↗This digest was generated by the reader's AI from the text of the decision and is a study aid, not the decision itself. Verify every point against the source before relying on it in an exam, paper or pleading. The Court's index points are reproduced from the Supreme Court's own publication.