Republic of the Philippines
First Judicial Region
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 2
Baguio City
DONATO REYES Civil Case No. 0001
Plaintiff, For:
Damages
- versus -
DR. ATO SANTOS and ST.
CHARLES HOSPITAL BAGUIO,
Defendants.
x---------------------------------------x
ANSWER
of
DR. ATO SANTOS
COMES NOW the Defendant, DR. ATO SANTOS, by the
undersigned counsel, an in answer to Plaintiff’s complaint,
respectfully alleges:
TIMELINESS IN THE FILING OF THE ANSWER
Defendants received the copy of the Complaint on April 1,
2022 and has fifteen (15) days therefrom, or until April 16,
2022, within which to file the Answer. Hence, the Answer of
the Defendants is seasonably filed.
ADMISSIONS AND DENIALS
1. The Defendant admits the contents of paragraphs 1,
2 and 3 of the Complaint as they relate to the
personal circumstances of the parties;
2. The Defendant admits the averment in paragraph 4
since it merely avers the employment of the
Defendant with St. Charles Hospital Baguio;
3. The Defendant admits the contents of paragraph 5
of the Complaint since it merely narrates the
personal circumstances of Myrel Reyes;
4. The Defendant admits the contents of paragraph 6
of the Complaint since it merely narrated that the
Defendant’s service was engaged by Myrel Reyes;
5. The Defendant admits the contents of paragraph 7
of the Complaint since it only states that Myrel
Reyes gave her consent to the course of treatment to
her.
6. The Defendant vehemently denies the allegations
stated in paragraph 8 of the Complaint particularly
that which states that the Defendant acted with
negligence during the surgery of Myrel Reyes. The
truth on that fact is that the Defendant exercised
extra-ordinary diligence before, during, and after
the surgery.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
The defendant is not liable for medical negligence and
malpractice since there is no breach of the duty by the
physician’s failing to act in accordance with the applicable
standard of care.
Solidum v. People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 192123
March 10, 2014)
Negligence is defined as the failure to observe
for the protection of the interests of another person
that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance that
the circumstances justly demand, whereby such
other person suffers injury. To successfully pursue
a medical malpractice suit, the plaintiff (in this
case, the deceased patient’s heir) must prove that
the doctor either failed to do what a reasonably
prudent doctor would have done, or did what a
reasonably prudent doctor would not have done;
and the act or omission had caused injury to the
patient. The patient’s heir/s bears the burden of
proving his/her cause of action.
The elements of a Medical Malpractice Suit, to
wit:
An action upon medical negligence –
whether criminal, civil or administrative – calls
for the plaintiff to prove by competent evidence
each of the following four elements, namely:
(a) the duty owed by the physician to the
patient, as created by the physician-patient
relationship, to act in accordance with the
specific norms or standards established by his
profession;
(b) the breach of the duty by the
physician’s failing to act in accordance with the
applicable standard of care;
(c) the causation, i.e., there must be a
reasonably close and causal connection
between the negligent act or omission and the
resulting injury; and
(d) the damages suffered by the patient.
Breach of duty occurs when the doctor fails to
comply with, or improperly performs his duties
under professional standards. This determination is
both factual and legal and is specific to each
individual case.
The Defendant, before, during, and after the
performance of the surgery exercised extra-ordinary
diligence required in medical practice. Before the
surgery, the Defendant carefully assessed the
condition of the patient and studied her case.
During the surgery, he was very careful in executing
each step necessary to perform the said surgery.
And after the surgery, he occasionally inquires as to
how Myrel Santos was doing. Thus, there was no
breach of duty on the part of the defendant since he
performed his duties under professional standards.
BY WAY OF COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM FOR
DAMAGES
The Defendant reiterate, replead and incorporate by
reference all the foregoing insofar as they are material and
additionally submit that he is entitled to relief arising from the
filing of this malicious and baseless suit, as follows:
a. Moral damages amounting to One Hundred Fifty
Thousand Pesos (PHP 150,000.00) as the defendant
suffered mental anguish, wounded feelings and
besmirched reputation.
b. Attorney’s fees amounting Fifty Thousand Pesos (PHP
50,000.00).
c. The cost of the suit
TESTIMONIAL AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
The Defendant submits the following evidentiary
matters to prove the respective averments contained in
this responsive pleading:
a. The JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT of Defendant Dr. Ato
Santos is hereby offered to prove that there was no
medical negligence on his part. The said affidavit is
hereby attached as “Annex A” and made an integral
part hereto; and
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Defendant most
respectfully prays this Honorable Court that judgment be
rendered in her favor by:
1. Dismissing the Complaint; and
2. Granting Defendant’s Counterclaim by ordering Plaintiff
to pay Defendant the following:
a. Php 150,000 as moral damages;
b. Php50,000 as Attorney’s fees;
c. Litigation costs and expenses.
Other reliefs deemed just and equitable are likewise
respectfully prayed for.
Baguio City, Philippines, this 7th day of April 2022.
(Sgd.)
ATTY. MIKHAEL V. MEDRANO
Roll no. 178944
PTR No. 87447; February 11, 2021; Baguio City
IBP No. 78416; May 19, 2019
Roll No. 11-11-34
MCLE Compliance No. 4484-20
mikahelmedrano@gmail.com
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )
CITY OF BAGUIO ) S.S.
VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM-
SHOPPING
I, ATO SANTOS of legal age, Filipino, and resident of the
#02 Gibraltar, Baguio City, after having been duly sworn to in
accordance with law hereby depose and state that:
1. I am one of the Defendants and Counterclaimants in the
above-entitled case;
2. I have caused the preparation of the foregoing ANSWER,
the contents of which are all true and correct to my
personal knowledge and authentic documents;
3. The pleading is not filed to harass, cause unnecessary
delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation; and
4. The factual allegations herein have evidentiary support,
or if specifically so identified, will likewise have
evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for
discovery;
5. I further certify that:
a. I have not theretofore commenced any action or
filed any claim involving the same issues in any
court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial agency, and to the
best of my knowledge, no such action is pending in
any tribunal;
b. Should I learn that similar action or proceeding has
been filed or is pending in any tribunal, I undertake
to report that fact within five (5) days therefrom.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand
this 7th day of April 2022 in Baguio City, Philippines.
ATO SANTOS
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, this 7th day of
April, 2021 in Baguio City by exhibiting as competent proof of
identity his Philippine Passport, with number 1234991 valid
until December 2022.
(Sgd.)
ATTY. MARCOS ROBREDO
Notary Public
Until December 31, 2020
Notarial Commission No. 2020-11 Roll No. 64879
IBP No. 100514/01-04-2008 PTR No. 546821/ 01-01-2020/
Baguio City, Benguet, Philippines MCLE Compliance No.: IV-
0048221/ 08-12-2022
Doc. No. 123;
Page No. 24 ;
Book No. IV;
Series of 2022.
Copy Furnished:
Atty. Juan Marquez
Counsel for Plaintiff
Room 1, AA Building, Session Road, Baguio Cit
