Supreme Court Ruling Clarifies Medical Malpractice Liability: What Hospitals Need to Know 

A Win for Ethical Medical Practice
by Climaco E. Caliwara

In a landmark decision released on July 9, 2025, the Supreme Court of the Philippines (SC) ruled that a doctor who provides proper medical advice, clearly explains the risks of a procedure, and obtains informed consent from the patient cannot be held liable for medical malpractice.

This ruling, stemming from the case Elpidio Que v. Philippine Heart Center and Dr. Avelino Aventura, offers critical legal clarity for hospitals and healthcare professionals navigating the complex terrain of patient care and liability.

For hospitals, this decision is more than a legal precedent—it’s a validation of ethical, transparent, and patient-centered care.

Case Background: The Power of Informed Consent

The case involved Dr. Avelino P. Aventura, Head of Surgery at the Philippine Heart Center, who treated patient Quintin Que for a life-threatening aortic aneurysm. After a successful bypass operation, Dr. Aventura presented two options for further treatment:

1. Open-chest surgery

2. A newer, less invasive stenting procedure

Dr. Aventura clearly explained the risks, including the possibility of death, and informed the family that the stenting would be performed by Belgian specialist Dr. Eric Verhoeven.

Despite initial hesitation, the Que family consented to the stenting procedure, which unfortunately failed due to anatomical complications. Quintin suffered a stroke and passed away.

The family filed a malpractice suit, but the Regional Trial Court, Court of Appeals, and ultimately the Supreme Court all ruled in favor of Dr. Aventura2.

Key Legal Takeaways for Hospitals

🏥 1. Informed Consent

The SC emphasized that informed consent—when a patient is made fully aware of the risks, benefits, and alternatives—protects physicians from malpractice claims, even if the outcome is unfavorable.

“Medical malpractice occurs when a doctor fails to deliver the standard of care expected from other doctors in similar circumstances,” the SC clarified.

🧑‍⚖️ 2. Referral Does Not Remove Responsibility

Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen noted that a doctor’s duty does not end with referral. Hospitals must ensure that referring physicians document the rationale, risks, and qualifications of specialists involved.

📋 3. Documentation Is Crucial

Hospitals should reinforce protocols requiring:

• Detailed consent forms

• Clear documentation of risk discussions

• Patient acknowledgment of understanding

These records are vital defenses in potential legal disputes.

Implications for Hospital Policy & Training

This ruling empowers hospitals to:

✅ Strengthen patient education programs – Ensure patients understand procedures, risks, and alternatives.
✅ Train staff on legal standards of care – Equip doctors with communication tools and legal awareness.
✅ Audit consent protocols – Regularly review how informed consent is obtained and documented.
✅ Support ethical referrals – Maintain transparency when involving external specialists.

A Message to Healthcare Leaders

This decision is a wake-up call and a reassurance. It reminds hospitals that ethical practice and clear communication are not just clinical responsibilities—they’re legal safeguards.

By fostering a culture of transparency, empathy, and diligence, hospitals can protect both their patients and their practitioners.

Reference: SC Clears Surgeon in Medical Malpractice Case Over Failed Stent Procedure – Supreme Court of the Philippines