DOCTRINE:
FACTS:
ISSUE:
HELD:
- Interlocutory orders are not appealable and the proper remedy thereto to assail such order is by way of petition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
- Where there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the only and remaining remedy left is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court on the ground of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
- Rules of evidence do not strictly apply in proceedings before administrative bodies.
- Documentary evidence can be used as an object evidence to prove an anatomical fact such as the anatomical location of a kidney.
FACTS:
- Due to lumber pains, one Editha Sioson went to Rizal Medical Center (RMC) for check-up.
- After some time, due to the same problem, she was referred to Dr. Lantin of RMC who ordered several diagnostic test.
- The test revealed that her lef kidney is non-functioning and non-visualizing, so she went kidney operation.
- The husband then filed a complaint for gross negligence and/or incompetence before the Board of Medicine (BOM) against the doctors who participated in the kidney operation, one of which is Dr. Atienza.
- Allegedly, it was the fully functioning right kidney that was removed instead of the defective left kidney.
- The spouses Sioson submitted their documentary evidence.
- Dr. Atienza then opposed the formal offer of exhibits before the BOM alleging that such evidences are inadmissible for being mere photocopies, not properly identified and authenticated, and intended to establish matters which are hearsay.
- The BOM then denied Dr. Atienza's motion concluding that the BOM must admit first the evidence being offers so it can determine its probative value to decide the case.
- Disagreeing, Dr. Atienza then elevated the matter to CA availing the remedy under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court against the respondent Board.
- The CA denied the petition for lack of merit. Hence, this petition before the Supreme Court.
ISSUE:
- WON Dr. Atienza availed of the proper remedy under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the CA assailing the orders of the Board.
- WON the CA committed a grace reversible error and decided a questions of substance not in accordance with law when it upheld the admission of incompentent and inadmissible evidence.
HELD:
- Petitioner is correct as the assailed Orders were interlocutory, these cannot be the subject of an appeal separate from the judgment that completely or finally disposes of the case. At that stage, where there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the only and remaining remedy left to petitioner is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court on the ground of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
- The CA did not commit a reversible error. It is well-settled that the rules of evidence are not strictly applied in proceedings before administrative bodies such as the BOM. The admission of the exhibits did not prejudice the substantive rights of petitioner because such facts, the proper anatomical locations of Editha's kidney is covered by mandatory judicial notice and need not be proven. The best evidence rule also do not apply in this matter. The exhibits are sought to prove only that Editha's kidney are in the proper anatomical location prior to the operation.
