ILAO-ORETA vs.

RONQUILLO
Facts: Despite several years of marriage, Spouses Ronquillo remained childless. They consulted Dr. Concepcion Ilao-Oreta, an obstetrician-gynecologist-consultant at St. Lukes and Chief of the Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility Section. The wife agreed to undergo alaparoscopic procedure where a laparoscope would be inserted through her abdominal wall to get a direct view of her internal reproductive organ in order to determine the real cause of her infertility. The procedure was scheduled on April 5, 1999 at 2 pm. Dr. Ilao-Oreta did not arrive and no prior notice of its cancellation was received by the Ronquillos. Dr. Ilao-Oreta was on her honeymoon in Hawaii. She estimated that she would arrive in Manila in the early morning of April 5. However, she failed to consider the time difference between Hawaii and Philippines. The Ronquillos filed a complaint against Dr. Ilao-Oreta and St. Lukes for breach of professional and service contract and for damages. RTC awarded Eva Marie only actual damages upon finding that the doctors failure to arrive on time was not intentional. CA found Dr. Ilao-Oreta grossly negligent. Issues: WON Dr. Ilao-Oreta was grossly negligent Held: The doctors act did not reflect gross negligence and the spouses were not entitled to recover moral damages. Gross negligence implies a wanton absence of or failure to exercise slight care or diligence, or the entire absence of care. It evinces a thoughtless disregard of consequences without exercising any effort to avoid them. It is characterized by want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally with a conscious indifference to consequences in so far as other persons may be affected. The records show that before leaving for Hawaii, Dr. Ilao-Oreta left an admitting order with her secretary for one of the spouses to pick up, apprised Eva Marie of the necessary preparations for the procedure, and instructed the hospital staff to perform pre-operative treatments. These acts of the doctor reflect an earnest intention to perform the procedure on the day and time scheduled. Although Dr. Ilao-Oretas act is not grossly negligent, she was negligent when she scheduled to perform professional service at 2 pm without considering the time difference between Philippines and Hawaii. Having travelled to the US, where she obtained a fellowship in Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, more than twice, she should have been mindful of the time difference. The procedure to be conducted on the wife was only elective in nature thus the situation did not present any clear and apparent harm or injury that even a careless person may perceive. According to the SC, it bears noting that when she was scheduling the date of her performance of the procedure, Dr. Ilao-Oreta had just gotten married and was preparing for her honeymoon, and it is of common human knowledge that excitement attends its preparations. Her negligence could then be partly attributed to human frailty which rules out its characterization as gross.