Atienza v. Board of Medicine
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondent Editha Sioson underwent a kidney operation in September 1999 due to lumbar pains and a non-functioning left kidney. Her husband filed a complaint for gross negligence and incompetence against several doctors, including petitioner Rico Rommel Atienza, alleging that the doctors mistakenly removed Sioson's fully functional right kidney instead of the non-functioning left one. Procedural History: The complaint was filed with the Board of Medicine (BOM). After the complainant presented evidence, Sioson filed a formal offer of documentary evidence, consisting of X-ray request forms, to prove her kidneys were in their proper anatomical locations. Atienza objected, arguing the exhibits were inadmissible photocopies, unauthenticated, hearsay, and incompetent. The BOM admitted the exhibits, stating it would determine their probative value later. Atienza moved for reconsideration, which was denied. He then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), assailing the BOM's orders. The CA dismissed the petition for lack of merit. The Petition: Petitioner Atienza seeks review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's decision. He raises two issues: (1) whether he availed of the proper remedy by filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the CA to assail the BOM's interlocutory orders, and (2) whether the CA erred in upholding the BOM's admission of allegedly incompetent and inadmissible evidence, which could lead to the deprivation of his professional license.
Issue(s)
WHETHER PETITIONER ATIENZA AVAILED OF THE PROPER REMEDY WHEN HE FILED THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI DATED 06 DECEMBER 2004 WITH THE COURT OF APPEALS UNDER RULE 65 OF THE RULES OF COURT TO ASSAIL THE ORDERS DATED 26 MAY 2004 AND 08 OCTOBER 2004 OF RESPONDENT BOARD. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE REVERSIBLE ERROR AND DECIDED A QUESTION OF SUBSTANCE IN A WAY NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND THE APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THE HONORABLE COURT WHEN IT UPHELD THE ADMISSION OF INCOMPETENT AND INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE BY RESPONDENT BOARD, WHICH CAN RESULT IN THE DEPRIVATION OF PROFESSIONAL LICENSE – A PROPERTY RIGHT OR ONE’S LIVELIHOOD.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 87755 is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Procedural Issue: Petitioner correctly availed of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court to assail the interlocutory Orders of the Board of Medicine (BOM) admitting the documentary exhibits. Such orders, not being final dispositions of the case, are not appealable in the ordinary course. Certiorari is the appropriate remedy when there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy, particularly when alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. However, the writ of certiorari will only issue upon a showing that the BOM acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion. The CA's dismissal of the petition implies it found no such grave abuse of discretion. On the Substantive Issue: The Court of Appeals did not commit grave reversible error in upholding the BOM's admission of Editha Sioson's exhibits. The rules of evidence are applied liberally in administrative proceedings like those before the BOM. The established policy is to admit evidence unless it is plainly irrelevant, immaterial, or incompetent, as any doubt regarding its admissibility or probative value can be resolved by the administrative body during its final determination of the case. This approach ensures that all potentially relevant evidence is considered, and any inadmissible evidence can be disregarded later without prejudice. The admission of the exhibits did not prejudice petitioner's substantive rights, as the fact they sought to prove – the proper anatomical locations of Editha's kidneys – is presumed under the ordinary course of nature and is also a matter of mandatory judicial notice. Furthermore, the best evidence rule was not violated because the subject of inquiry was the alleged negligence, not the contents of the documents themselves, and secondary evidence was permissible as the originals were lost due to office transfer. The exhibits were also not hearsay as the anatomical positions of the kidneys could be established through other means.
Main Doctrine
The rules of evidence are not strictly applied in proceedings before administrative bodies, and it is the safer policy to be liberal in admitting evidence unless plainly irrelevant, immaterial, or incompetent, as their admissibility and probative value can be determined later.