Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

RICO ROMMEL ATIENZA,
Petitioner,




- versus -




BOARD OF MEDICINE and EDITHA
SIOSON,
Respondents.
!R! No!
"##$%#

Present:

NACHURA,
Acting Chairperson,
PERALTA,
EL CA!T"LL#,
$
%"LLARA&A, 'R.,
$
$ (nd
&EN#)A, JJ.

Pro*ul+(ted:
* Additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio per Raffle dated August 2, 2010.
** Additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Roberto A. Abad per Raffle dated August 2, 2010.

,ebru(r- ., /011


x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x


DECISION

NACH&RA, J!'


2efore us is ( petition for revie3 on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court, (ss(ilin+ the ecision
1
617 d(ted !epte*ber //, /008 of the Court of Appe(ls
9CA: in CA-;.R. !P No. <==55. The CA dis*issed the petition for certiorari filed
b- petitioner Rico Ro**el Atien>( 9Atien>(:, 3hich, in turn, (ss(iled the
#rders
/
6/7 issued b- public respondent 2o(rd of &edicine 92#&: in
Ad*inistr(tive C(se No. 1<</.

The f(cts, f(irl- su**(ri>ed b- the (ppell(te court, follo3.
1[1] enned b! residing Justice Ruben T. Re!es "a retired member of t#is Court$, %it# Associate
Justices Juan &. 'nri(ue, Jr. and )icente *.'. )eloso, concurring+ rollo, pp. ,-.10/.
2[2] 0ated 1a! 2/, 2002 and 3ctober 4, 2002, respecti5el!+ id. at 204.211.




ue to her lu*b(r p(ins, priv(te respondent Edith( !ioson 3ent to Ri>(l
&edic(l Center 9R&C: for chec?-up on ,ebru(r- 4, 1..5. !o*eti*e in 1..., due
to the s(*e proble*, she 3(s referred to r. Pedro L(ntin """ of R&C 3ho,
(ccordin+l-, ordered sever(l di(+nostic l(bor(tor- tests. The tests reve(led th(t
her ri+ht ?idne- is nor*(l. "t 3(s (scert(ined, ho3ever, th(t her left ?idne- is
non-functionin+ (nd non-visu(li>in+. Thus, she under3ent ?idne- oper(tion in
!epte*ber, 1....

#n ,ebru(r- 1<, /000, priv(te respondent@s husb(nd, Ro*eo !ioson 9(s
co*pl(in(nt:, filed ( co*pl(int for +ross ne+li+ence (ndAor inco*petence before
the 62#&7 (+(inst the doctors 3ho (lle+edl- p(rticip(ted in the f(teful ?idne-
oper(tion, n(*el-: r. 'udd del( %e+(, r. Pedro L(ntin, """, r. ;er(rdo
Antonio ,lorendo (nd petitioner Rico Ro**el Atien>(.

"t 3(s (lle+ed in the co*pl(int th(t the +ross ne+li+ence (ndAor
inco*petence co**itted b- the s(id doctors, includin+ petitioner, consists of the
re*ov(l of priv(te respondent@s full- function(l ri+ht ?idne-, inste(d of the left
non-functionin+ (nd non-visu(li>in+ ?idne-.

The co*pl(int 3(s he(rd b- the 62#&7. After co*pl(in(nt Ro*eo !ioson
presented his evidence, priv(te respondent Edith( !ioson, (lso n(*ed (s
co*pl(in(nt there, filed her for*(l offer of docu*ent(r- evidence. Att(ched to
the for*(l offer of docu*ent(r- evidence (re her EBhibits CAD to C,D 3hich she
offered for the purpose of provin+ th(t her ?idne-s 3ere both in their proper
(n(to*ic(l loc(tions (t the ti*e she 3(s oper(ted. !he described her eBhibits, (s
follo3s:

CEEH"2"T FA@ G the certified photocop- of the E-r(-
ReHuest for* d(ted ece*ber 1/, 1..8, 3hich is (lso *(r?ed (s
AnneB F/@ (s it 3(s (ctu(ll- ori+in(ll- the AnneB to B B B r.
Pedro L(ntin, """@s counter (ffid(vit filed 3ith the Cit- Prosecutor
of P(si+ Cit- in connection 3ith the cri*in(l co*pl(int filed b-
6Ro*eo !ioson7 3ith the s(id office, on 3hich (re h(nd3ritten
entries 3hich (re the interpret(tion of the results of the ultr(sound
eB(*in(tion. "ncident(ll-, this eBhibit h(ppens to be the s(*e (s or
identic(l to the certified photocop- of the docu*ent *(r?ed (s
AnneB F/@ to the Counter-Affid(vit d(ted &(rch 15, /000, filed b-
B B B r. Pedro L(ntin, """, on &(- 4, /000, 3ith this Honor(ble
2o(rd in (ns3er to this co*pl(intI

CEEH"2"T F2@ G the certified photo cop- of the E-r(-
reHuest for* d(ted '(nu(r- J0, 1..=, 3hich is (lso *(r?ed (s
AnneB FJ@ (s it 3(s (ctu(ll- li?e3ise ori+in(ll- (n AnneB to B B B
r. Pedro L(ntin, """@s counter-(ffid(vit filed 3ith the #ffice of the
Cit- Prosecutor of P(si+ Cit- in connection 3ith the cri*in(l
co*pl(int filed b- the herein co*pl(in(nt 3ith the s(id office, on
3hich (re h(nd3ritten entries 3hich (re the interpret(tion of the
results of the eB(*in(tion. "ncident(ll-, this eBhibit h(ppens to be
(lso the s(*e (s or identic(l to the certified photo cop- of the
docu*ent *(r?ed (s AnneB FJ@ 3hich is li?e3ise d(ted '(nu(r-
J0, 1..=, 3hich is (ppended (s such AnneB FJ@ to the counter-
(ffid(vit d(ted &(rch 15, /000, filed b- B B B r. Pedro L(ntin, """
on &(- 4, /000, 3ith this Honor(ble 2o(rd in (ns3er to this
co*pl(int.

CEEH"2"T FC@ G the certified photocop- of the E-r(-
reHuest for* d(ted &(rch 18, 1..8, 3hich is (lso *(r?ed (s
AnneB F4,@ on 3hich (re h(nd3ritten entries 3hich (re the
interpret(tion of the results of the eB(*in(tion.

CEEH"2"T F@ G the certified photocop- of the E-r(-
reHuest for* d(ted &(- /0, 1..., 3hich is (lso *(r?ed (s AnneB
F18,@ on 3hich (re h(nd3ritten entries 3hich (re the interpret(tion
of the results of the eB(*in(tion. "ncident(ll-, this eBhibit (ppe(rs
to be the dr(ft of the t-pe3ritten fin(l report of the s(*e
eB(*in(tion 3hich is the docu*ent (ppended (s AnneBes F4@ (nd
F1@ respectivel- to the counter-(ffid(vits filed b- B B B r. 'udd
del( %e+( (nd r. Pedro L(ntin, """ in (ns3er to the co*pl(int. "n
the c(se of r. del( %e+( ho3ever, the docu*ent 3hich is *(r?ed
(s AnneB F4@ is not ( certified photocop-, 3hile in the c(se of r.
L(ntin, the docu*ent *(r?ed (s AnneB F1@ is ( certified
photocop-. 2oth docu*ents (re of the s(*e d(te (nd t-pe3ritten
contents (re the s(*e (s th(t 3hich (re 3ritten on EBhibit F.@

Petitioner filed his co**entsAobKections to priv(te respondent@s 6Edith(
!ioson@s7 for*(l offer of eBhibits. He (lle+ed th(t s(id eBhibits (re in(d*issible
bec(use the s(*e (re *ere photocopies, not properl- identified (nd (uthentic(ted,
(nd intended to est(blish *(tters 3hich (re he(rs(-. He (dded th(t the eBhibits (re
inco*petent to prove the purpose for 3hich the- (re offered.

Dispositions of the Board of Medicine

The for*(l offer of docu*ent(r- eBhibits of priv(te respondent 6Edith(
!ioson7 3(s (d*itted b- the 62#&7 per its #rder d(ted &(- /8, /004. "t re(ds:

CThe ,or*(l #ffer of ocu*ent(r- Evidence of 6Ro*eo
!ioson7, the Co**entsA#bKections of 6herein petitioner7 Atien>(,
6therein respondents7 e l( %e+( (nd L(ntin, (nd the &(nifest(tion
of 6therein7 respondent ,lorendo (re hereb- A&"TTE b- the
62#&7 for 3h(tever purpose the- *(- serve in the resolution of
this c(se.

CLet the he(rin+ be set on 'ul- 1., /004 (ll (t 1:J0 p.*. for
the reception of the evidence of the respondents.

C!# #RERE.D

Petitioner *oved for reconsider(tion of the (bove*entioned #rder
b(sic(ll- on the s(*e re(sons st(ted in his co**entAobKections to the for*(l offer
of eBhibits.

The 62#&7 denied the *otion for reconsider(tion of petitioner in its
#rder d(ted #ctober <, /004. "t concluded th(t it should first (d*it the evidence
bein+ offered so th(t it c(n deter*ine its prob(tive v(lue 3hen it decides the c(se.
Accordin+ to the 2o(rd, it c(n deter*ine 3hether the evidence is relev(nt or not if
it 3ill t(?e ( loo? (t it throu+h the process of (d*ission. B B B.
J
6J7

is(+reein+ 3ith the 2#&, (nd (s previousl- (dverted to, Atien>( filed (
petition for certiorari 3ith the CA, (ss(ilin+ the 2#&@s #rders 3hich (d*itted
Edith( !ioson@s 9Edith(@s: ,or*(l #ffer of ocu*ent(r- Evidence. The CA
dis*issed the petition for certiorari for l(c? of *erit.

Hence, this recourse positin+ the follo3in+ issues:

". PR#CEURAL "!!UE:

LHETHER PET"T"#NER AT"EN)A A%A"LE #, THE PR#PER
RE&EM LHEN HE ,"LE THE PET"T"#N ,#R CERTIORARI
ATE 08 ECE&2ER /004 L"TH THE C#URT #, APPEAL!
UNER RULE 85 #, THE RULE! #, C#URT T# A!!A"L THE
6[6] 7d. at ,-.,,.
#RER! ATE /8 &AM /004 AN 0< #CT#2ER /004 #,
RE!P#NENT 2#AR.

"". !U2!TANT"%E "!!UE:

LHETHER THE C#URT #, APPEAL! C#&&"TTE ;RA%E
RE%ER!"2LE ERR#R AN EC"E A NUE!T"#N #,
!U2!TANCE "N A LAM N#T "N ACC#RANCE L"TH LAL AN
THE APPL"CA2LE EC"!"#N! #, THE H#N#RA2LE C#URT
LHEN "T UPHEL THE A&"!!"#N #, "NC#&PETENT AN
"NA&"!!"2LE E%"ENCE 2M RE!P#NENT 2#AR, LH"CH
CAN RE!ULT "N THE EPR"%AT"#N #, PR#,E!!"#NAL
L"CEN!E G A PR#PERTM R";HT #R #NE@! L"%EL"H##.
4
647


Le find no re(son to dep(rt fro* the rulin+ of the CA.

Petitioner is correct 3hen he (sserts th(t ( petition for certiorari is the
proper re*ed- to (ss(il the #rders of the 2#&, (d*ittin+ in evidence the eBhibits
of Edith(. As the (ss(iled #rders 3ere interlocutor-, these c(nnot be the subKect of
(n (ppe(l sep(r(te fro* the Kud+*ent th(t co*pletel- or fin(ll- disposes of the
c(se.
5
657 At th(t st(+e, 3here there is no (ppe(l, or (n- pl(in, speed-, (nd (deHu(te
re*ed- in the ordin(r- course of l(3, the onl- (nd re*(inin+ re*ed- left to
petitioner is ( petition for certiorari under Rule 85 of the Rules of Court on the
+round of +r(ve (buse of discretion (*ountin+ to l(c? or eBcess of Kurisdiction.

Ho3ever, the 3rit of certiorari 3ill not issue (bsent ( sho3in+ th(t the
2#& h(s (cted 3ithout or in eBcess of Kurisdiction or 3ith +r(ve (buse of
2[2] 7d. at /88./84.
-[-] Raymundo v. Isagon Vda. de Suarez, 9.R. :o. 12,018, :o5ember 24, 2004, -82 *CRA 642,
206.202.

discretion. E*bedded in the CA@s findin+ th(t the 2#& did not eBceed its
Kurisdiction or (ct in +r(ve (buse of discretion is the issue of 3hether the eBhibits
of Edith( cont(ined in her ,or*(l #ffer of ocu*ent(r- Evidence (re
in(d*issible.

Petitioner (r+ues th(t the eBhibits for*(ll- offered in evidence b- Edith(:
91: viol(te the best evidence ruleI 9/: h(ve not been properl- identified (nd
(uthentic(tedI 9J: (re co*pletel- he(rs(-I (nd 94: (re inco*petent to prove their
purpose. Thus, petitioner contends th(t the eBhibits (re in(d*issible evidence.

Le dis(+ree.

To be+in 3ith, it is 3ell-settled th(t the rules of evidence (re not strictl-
(pplied in proceedin+s before (d*inistr(tive bodies such (s the 2#&.
8
687
Althou+h tri(l courts (re enKoined to observe strict enforce*ent of the rules of
evidence,
=
6=7 in connection 3ith evidence 3hich *(- (ppe(r to be of doubtful
relev(nc-, inco*petenc-, or (d*issibilit-, 3e h(ve held th(t:

6"7t is the s(fest polic- to be liber(l, not reKectin+ the* on doubtful or technic(l
+rounds, but (d*ittin+ the* unless pl(inl- irrelev(nt, i**(teri(l or inco*petent,
for the re(son th(t their reKection pl(ces the* be-ond the consider(tion of the
court, if the- (re there(fter found relev(nt or co*petentI on the other h(nd, their
/[/] Bantolino v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc., 2-1 #il. 46,, 42-.42/ "2006$.
8[8] ;rancisco, ')70':C' R<='* 124.162 "6
rd
ed. 1,,/$, p. ,.
(d*ission, if the- turn out l(ter to be irrelev(nt or inco*petent, c(n e(sil- be
re*edied b- co*pletel- disc(rdin+ the* or i+norin+ the*.
<
6<7

,ro* the fore+oin+, 3e e*ph(si>e the distinction bet3een the (d*issibilit-
of evidence (nd the prob(tive 3ei+ht to be (ccorded the s(*e pieces of evidence.
PNOC Shipping and Transport Corporation v. Court of Appeals
.
6.7 te(ches:

Ad*issibilit- of evidence refers to the Huestion of 3hether or not the
circu*st(nce 9or evidence: is to be considered (t (ll. #n the other h(nd, the
prob(tive v(lue of evidence refers to the Huestion of 3hether or not it proves (n
issue.


!econd, petitioner@s insistence th(t the (d*ission of Edith(@s eBhibits
viol(ted his subst(ntive ri+hts le(din+ to the loss of his *edic(l license is
*ispl(ced. Petitioner *ist(?enl- relies on !ection /0, Article " of the Profession(l
Re+ul(tion Co**ission Rules of Procedure, 3hich re(ds:
4[4] 7d., citing People v. Jaca, et al., 10/ #il. -82, -8- "1,-,$.
,[,] 6-4 #il. 64, -, "1,,4$.
!ection /0. Ad*inistr(tive investi+(tion sh(ll be conducted in (ccord(nce
3ith these Rules. The Rules of Court sh(ll onl- (ppl- in these proceedin+s b-
(n(lo+- or on ( suppletor- ch(r(cter (nd 3henever pr(ctic(ble (nd convenient.
Technic(l errors in the (d*ission of evidence 3hich do not preKudice the
subst(ntive ri+hts of either p(rt- sh(ll not viti(te the proceedin+s.
10
6107

As pointed out b- the (ppell(te court, the (d*ission of the eBhibits did not
preKudice the subst(ntive ri+hts of petitioner bec(use, (t (n- r(te, the f(ct sou+ht to
be proved thereb-, th(t the t3o ?idne-s of Edith( 3ere in their proper (n(to*ic(l
loc(tions (t the ti*e she 3(s oper(ted on, is presu*ed under !ection J, Rule 1J1
of the Rules of Court:

!ec. J. Disputale presu!ptions. G The follo3in+ presu*ptions (re
s(tisf(ctor- if uncontr(dicted, but *(- be contr(dicted (nd overco*e b- other
evidence:

B B B B

9-: Th(t thin+s h(ve h(ppened (ccordin+ to the ordin(r- course of n(ture
(nd the ordin(r- h(bits of life.


The eBhibits (re certified photocopies of E-r(- ReHuest ,or*s d(ted
ece*ber 1/, 1..8, '(nu(r- J0, 1..=, &(rch 18, 1..8, (nd &(- /0, 1..., filed in
connection 3ith Edith(@s *edic(l c(se. The docu*ents cont(in h(nd3ritten entries
interpretin+ the results of the eB(*in(tion. These eBhibits 3ere (ctu(ll- (tt(ched (s
(nneBes to r. Pedro L(ntin """@s counter (ffid(vit filed 3ith the #ffice of the Cit-
Prosecutor of P(si+ Cit-, 3hich 3(s investi+(tin+ the cri*in(l co*pl(int for
ne+li+ence filed b- Edith( (+(inst the doctors of Ri>(l &edic(l Center 9R&C: 3ho
10[10] Rollo, p. 101.
h(ndled her sur+ic(l procedure. To l(- the predic(te for her c(se, Edith( offered
the eBhibits in evidence to prove th(t her C?idne-s 3ere both in their proper
(n(to*ic(l loc(tions (t the ti*eD of her oper(tion.

The f(ct sou+ht to be est(blished b- the (d*ission of Edith(@s eBhibits, th(t
her C?idne-s 3ere both in their proper (n(to*ic(l loc(tions (t the ti*eD of her
oper(tion, need not be proved (s it is covered b- *(nd(tor- Kudici(l notice.
11
6117

UnHuestion(bl-, the rules of evidence (re *erel- the *e(ns for (scert(inin+
the truth respectin+ ( *(tter of f(ct.
1/
61/7 Thus, the- li?e3ise provide for so*e
f(cts 3hich (re est(blished (nd need not be proved, such (s those covered b-
Kudici(l notice, both *(nd(tor- (nd discretion(r-.
1J
61J7 L(3s of n(ture involvin+
the ph-sic(l sciences, specific(ll- biolo+-,
14
6147 include the structur(l *(?e-up
(nd co*position of livin+ thin+s such (s hu*(n bein+s. "n this c(se, 3e *(- t(?e
Kudici(l notice th(t Edith(@s ?idne-s before, (nd (t the ti*e of, her oper(tion, (s
3ith *ost hu*(n bein+s, 3ere in their proper (n(to*ic(l loc(tions.

11[11] R<='* 3; C3<RT, Rule 12,, *ec. 1.
*'CT73: 1. Judicial notice, hen mandatory. > A court s#all ta?e @udicial notice, %it#out t#e
introduction of e5idence, of t#e eAistence and territorial eAtent of states, t#eir political #istor!, forms of
go5ernment and s!mbols of nationalit!, t#e la% of nations, t#e admiralt! and maritime courts of t#e %orld
and t#eir seals, t#e political constitution and #istor! of t#e #ilippines, t#e official acts of t#e legislati5e,
eAecuti5e and @udicial departments of t#e #ilippines, t#e la%s of nature, t#e measure of time, and t#e
geograp#ical di5isions.
12[12] R<='* 3; C3<RT, Rule 124, *ec. 1.
16[16] R<='* 3; C3<RT, Rule 12,, *ec. 2.
*'C. 2. Judicial notice, hen discretionary. > A court ma! ta?e @udicial notice of matters %#ic#
are of public ?no%ledge, or are capable of un(uestionable demonstration, or oug#t to be ?no%n to @udges
because of t#eir @udicial functions.
12[12] *cience of life, definition of BebsterCs T#ird :e% 7nternational 0ictionar!.
Third, contr(r- to the (ssertion of petitioner, the best evidence rule is
in(pplic(ble. !ection J of Rule 1J0 provides:

"! Be(t E)iden*e Rule

!ec. J. Original docu!ent !ust e produced" e#ceptions. G Lhen the
subKect of inHuir- is the contents of ( docu*ent, no evidence sh(ll be (d*issible
other th(n the ori+in(l docu*ent itself, eBcept in the follo3in+ c(ses:

9(: Lhen the ori+in(l h(s been lost or destro-ed, or c(nnot be
produced in court, 3ithout b(d f(ith on the p(rt of the offerorI

9b: Lhen the ori+in(l is in the custod- or under the control of the
p(rt- (+(inst 3ho* the evidence is offered, (nd the l(tter f(ils to produce it (fter
re(son(ble noticeI

9c: Lhen the ori+in(l consists of nu*erous (ccounts or other
docu*ents 3hich c(nnot be eB(*ined in court 3ithout +re(t loss of ti*e (nd the
f(ct sou+ht to be est(blished fro* the* is onl- the +ener(l result of the 3holeI
(nd

9d: Lhen the ori+in(l is ( public record in the custod- of ( public
officer or is recorded in ( public office.


The subKect of inHuir- in this c(se is 3hether respondent doctors before the
2#& (re li(ble for +ross ne+li+ence in re*ovin+ the ri+ht functionin+ ?idne- of
Edith( inste(d of the left non-functionin+ ?idne-, not the proper (n(to*ic(l
loc(tions of Edith(@s ?idne-s. As previousl- discussed, the proper (n(to*ic(l
loc(tions of Edith(@s ?idne-s (t the ti*e of her oper(tion (t the R&C *(- be
est(blished not onl- throu+h the eBhibits offered in evidence.

,in(ll-, these eBhibits do not constitute he(rs(- evidence of the (n(to*ic(l
loc(tions of Edith(@s ?idne-s. To further drive ho*e the point, the (n(to*ic(l
positions, 3hether left or ri+ht, of Edith(@s ?idne-s, (nd the re*ov(l of one or
both, *(- still be est(blished throu+h ( bel(ted ultr(sound or B-r(- of her
(bdo*in(l (re(.

"n f(ct, the introduction of second(r- evidence, such (s copies of the
eBhibits, is (llo3ed.
15
6157 Litness r. N(nc- AHuino testified th(t the Records
#ffice of R&C no lon+er h(d the ori+in(ls of the eBhibits Cbec(use 6it7 tr(nsferred
fro* the previous buildin+, B B B to the ne3 buildin+.D
18
6187 Ulti*(tel-, since the
ori+in(ls c(nnot be produced, the 2#& properl- (d*itted Edith(@s for*(l offer of
evidence (nd, there(fter, the 2#& sh(ll deter*ine the prob(tive v(lue thereof
3hen it decides the c(se.

+HEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The ecision of the Court of
Appe(ls in CA-;.R. !P No. <==55 is AFFIRMED. Costs (+(inst petitioner.

SO ORDERED.


1-[1-] R<='* 3; C3<RT, Rule 160, *ec. -.
1/[1/] T*:, Jul! 18, 2006+ rollo, pp. 628.624.
ANTONIO ED&ARDO B! NACH&RA
Associ(te 'ustice
Actin+ Ch(irperson



+E CONC&R'



DIOSDADO M! ,ERALTA
Associ(te 'ustice




MARIANO C! DEL CASTILLO
Associ(te 'ustice
MARTIN S! VILLARAMA, -R!
Associ(te 'ustice




-OSE CATRAL MENDOZA
Associ(te 'ustice


A T T E S T A T I O N

" (ttest th(t the conclusions in the (bove ecision h(d been re(ched in
consult(tion before the c(se 3(s (ssi+ned to the 3riter of the opinion of the
Court@s ivision.


ANTONIO ED&ARDO B! NACH&RA
Associ(te 'ustice
Actin+ Ch(irperson, !econd ivision



C E R T I F I C A T I O N

Pursu(nt to !ection 1J, Article %""" of the Constitution (nd the ivision
Actin+ Ch(irpersonOs Attest(tion, " certif- th(t the conclusions in the (bove
ecision h(d been re(ched in consult(tion before the c(se 3(s (ssi+ned to the
3riter of the opinion of the Court@s ivision.



RENATO C! CORONA
Chief 'ustice