G.R. No. 217426. December 4, 2017

'''G.R. No. 217426. December 4, 2017 '''is a Decision 2017 by the Supreme Court.

Case Details

 * St. Martin Polyclinic, Inc. Vs. LWV Construction Corporation
 * G.R. No. 217426. December 4, 2017
 * Justice Estela Perlas-Bernabe
 * http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2017/december2017/217426.pdf
 * Php 10,000 fine

Overview
On January 10, 2008, respondent referred prospective applicant xxx (xxx) to petitioner for a pre-deployment medical examination in accordance with the instructions from GAMCA. After undergoing the required examinations, petitioner cleared xxx and found him "fit for employment," as evidenced by a Medical Report dated January 11, 2008 (Medical Report).

Based on the foregoing, respondent deployed xxx to Saudi Arabia, allegedly incurring expenses in the amount of P84,373.41. Unfortunately, when xxx underwent another medical examination with the General Care Dispensary of Saudi Arabia (General Care Dispensary) on March 24, 2008, he purportedly tested positive for HCV or the hepatitis C virus. The Ministry of Health of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (Ministry of Health) required a re-examination of xxx, which the General Care Dispensary conducted on April 28, 2008. However, the results of the re-examination remained the same, i.e., xxx was positive for HCV, which results were reflected in a Certification dated April 28, 2008 (Certification). An undated HCV Confirmatory Test Report likewise conducted by the Ministry of Health affirmed such finding, thereby leading to Raguindin's repatriation to the Philippines.

Issues
The essential issue advanced for the Court's resolution is whether or not petitioner was negligent in issuing the Medical Report declaring xxx "fit for employment" and hence, should be held liable for damages.

Info
I.

At the outset, it should be pointed out that a re-examination of factual findings cannot be done acting on a petition for review on certiorari because the Court is not a trier of facts but reviews only questions of law. Thus, in petitions for review on certiorari, only questions of law may generally be put into issue. This rule, however, admits of certain exceptions, such as "when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible"; or "when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based." Finding a confluence of certain exceptions in this case, the general rule that only legal issues may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court would not apply, and the Court retains the authority to pass upon the evidence presented and draw conclusions therefrom.

II.

The elements of a quasi-delict are: (1) an act or omission; (2) the presence of fault or negligence in the performance or non-performance of the act; (3) injury; (4) a causal connection between the negligent act and the injury; and (5) no pre-existing contractual relation'''. '''

III.

In fact, there is a reasonable possibility that xxx became exposed to the HCV only after his medical examination with petitioner on January 11, 2008. Based on published reports from the World Health Organization, HCV or the hepatitis C virus causes both acute and chronic infection. Acute HCV infection is usually asymptomatic, and is only very rarely associated with life-threatening diseases. The incubation period[64] for HCV is two (2) weeks to six (6) months, and following initial infection, approximately 80% of people do not exhibit any symptoms. Indisputably, xxx was not deployed to Saudi Arabia immediately after petitioner's medical examination and hence, could have possibly contracted the same only when he arrived thereat. In light of the foregoing, the CA therefore erred in holding that "[h]ad petitioner more thoroughly and diligently examined Raguindin, it would likely have discovered the existence of the HCV because it was contrary to human experience that a newly-deployed overseas worker, such as Raguindin, would immediately have contracted the disease at the beginning of his deployment"

IV.

Notably, the foregoing provision applies since the Certification does not fall within the classes of public documents under Section 19, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court - and hence, must be considered as private. It has been settled that an unverified and unidentified private document cannot be accorded probative value.[69] In addition, case law states that "since a medical certificate involves an opinion of one who must first be established as an expert witness, it cannot be given weight or credit unless the doctor who issued it is presented in court to show his qualifications. It is precluded because the party against whomit is presented is deprived of the right and opportunity to cross-examine the person to whom the statements or writings are attributed. Its executor or author should be presented as a witness to provide the other party to the litigation the opportunity to question its contents. Being mere hearsay evidence, failure to present the author of the medical certificate renders its contents suspect and of no probative value," as in this case.

A cursory examination of the subject document would reveal that while it contains English words, the majority of it is in an unofficial language. Sans any translation in English or Filipino provided by respondent, the same should not have been admitted in evidence; thus their contents could not be given probative value, and deemed to constitute proof of the facts stated therein.Moreover, the due execution and authenticity of the said certification were not proven in accordance with Section 20, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court:Section 20. Proof of private document. - Before any private document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be proved either:
 * (a) By anyone who saw the document executed or written; or
 * (b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker.
 * (c) Any other private document need only be identified as that which it is claimed to be.

Decision
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. Accordingly, the Decision dated July 11, 2014 and the Resolution dated February 27, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 125451 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and a NEW ONE is entered, DISMISSING the complaint of respondent LWV Construction Corporation for lack of merit.

Trivia

 * Fit to Work
 * Quasi-Delict
 * OFW