Friday, February 17, 2006
Lawyer to ask court to cite physician for contempt
LAWYER Amado Rematche Parreño might charge Dr. Miguel "Mike" Sarabia, a known ophthalmologist in Bacolod, for contempt in court.
The doctor, he claimed, released deceptive, malicious, and misleading statements on the dismissal of the case filed against him by his client Romulo Sombito.
Sombito had asked the court to award him damages citing medical malpractice as a ground.
This was after Sombito, widower and a resident of Victorias City, Negros Occidental, underwent an eye cataract operation on his left eye.
The operation was said to have been conducted by Sarabia at Tiong Bi Hospital (now known as the Our Bacolod Lady of Mercy Hospital) in Barangay Eroreco, Bacolod on October 11, 2001.
Days after the operation, however, Sombito's left eye allegedly developed an infection prompting him to see another ophthalmologist who later recommended that he undergo immediate eye enucleation or removal of the portion of the eye so the infection would not reach his other eye.
By August 19, 2002, Sombito filed a civil suit before the court and asked for more than P1 million in damages and attorney's fees.
The case was heard by Judge Ray Allan Drilon, who dismissed the case after Sombito died.
But Sombito's counsel, lawyer Eutiqio Fudolin Jr. of the Amado B. Parreño Law Offices, appealed the decision before the Supreme Court and asked to grant the replacement of the plaintiff in the person of his surviving son-heir.
The High Court, however, denied the petition in its August 31, 2005 decision.
It ruled that Fudolin failed to show that a reversible error had been committed by the local court.
Parreño and the rest of his associate lawyers agreed with the decision of the Supreme Court that the case was dismissed not on the merits but because of the death of complainant who was not able to finish his testimony in Court.
They, however, were shocked on February 14 that Sarabia distributed the copy of the Supreme Court decision to several media outlets and made comments allegedly extorting the real facts of the case.
In a statement Thursday, Fudolin lambasted Sarabia for allegedly misleading the public in order "to salvage an already tarnished professional image."
Fudolin then echoed the argument of Parreño stressing that the malpractice and damage case they filed against Sarabia was not dismissed on the merits but was dismissed because of the death of his client.
He said the death of Sombito moved the heirs to request the trial court to substitute their deceased father but it was denied for the reason that the death of the complainant carries with it the dismissal of the case as it is a personal action for damages, which is extinguished upon the death of the complainant.
Fudolin said the claim of Sarabia that the case against him was dismissed on the merit is a downright lie, which is contemptuous.
He added that Sarabia also deliberately distorted the truth when he claim "that for three years while the case was under trial Sombito refused examination by his counsel, no expert witness was presented and was unable to produce any material as evidence."
Fudolin also alleged that the Court records have shown that after Sombito finished his direct testimony, Sarabia's counsel has asked for several postponements of the cross-examination until such time that the complainant eventually died.
What Sarabia reported to the media, Fudolin said, was only his answer deliberately withholding the allegations of the complaint.
"This is plain bias for self aggrandizement," the statement also read.
When sought for comment last night over the phone, Sarabia said, "I don't want to comment on what lawyer Parreño is planning or trying to do."
He, on the other hand, added, "I'll just wait (for any development)."
(February 17, 2006 issue)
Write letter to the editor. Click here.
Join the Sun.Star message board. Click here. |
