NATIONAL
Advocates Philippines
Supreme Court Affirms: Doctors Who Fully Inform Patients And Obtain Consent Are Not Liable For Malpractice
FILE
The Supreme Court recently clarified an important principle in medical malpractice cases: a doctor who provides proper medical advice, clearly explains the risks of a procedure, and secures the patient’s informed consent cannot be held liable for malpractice if complications arise despite reasonable care.
In a decision penned by retired Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez, the Court’s Second Division upheld the dismissal of a malpractice complaint against Dr. Avelino P. Aventura, head of the Surgery Department at the Philippine Heart Center, over the death of his patient, Quintin Que.
The case was brought by Elpidio Que, who accused Dr. Aventura of negligence after his father, Quintin, suffered a fatal stroke during a failed stenting procedure intended to treat an aneurysm in the aortic arch.
The Court’s ruling provides a nuanced discussion of what constitutes medical malpractice. It reiterated that a physician is expected to exercise the degree of skill, care, and knowledge ordinarily possessed by others in the same field. One critical component of this duty is obtaining informed consent: a patient must agree to a procedure knowing the risks, benefits, and alternatives.
The case in context
Quintin Que first consulted Dr. Aventura after experiencing hoarseness caused by an aneurysm pressing on his vocal cords. A CT scan confirmed the aneurysm was life-threatening. Dr. Aventura recommended a two-step approach: first, a heart bypass, followed by a separate procedure to address the aneurysm. The bypass was performed successfully.
When the aneurysm worsened months later, Dr. Aventura outlined two options: open-chest surgery or a newer, less invasive stenting procedure. The Que family chose stenting, reassured by its lower risk profile compared to open surgery.
Importantly, Dr. Aventura informed the family that neither procedure guaranteed success, and he made clear that he would not personally perform the stenting as it was outside his expertise. He introduced Quintin to Belgian specialist Dr. Verhoeven, who was brought in to carry out the procedure. Quintin signed consent forms after being advised of the risks—including death.
Unfortunately, during the procedure, the custom stent could not be deployed properly due to the anatomy of Quintin’s artery. He suffered a stroke and never regained consciousness.
Why the Court cleared the doctor
The Regional Trial Court and Court of Appeals had both dismissed the complaint, and the Supreme Court agreed with their findings. The justices held that Dr. Aventura’s conduct met the expected standard of care: he made a medically appropriate recommendation, fully informed the patient and his family of the risks, obtained consent, and arranged for a qualified specialist to perform the procedure.
Expert witnesses testified that stenting was a reasonable choice under the circumstances, given the risks of open surgery. The Court stressed that an unsuccessful outcome alone is not proof of negligence.
In a concurring opinion, Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen added an important reminder: an attending physician’s responsibility does not end with a referral to a foreign specialist. The doctor must still ensure that the referral, the preparation, and the choice of procedure meet the standards of care and minimize risks. In this case, Dr. Aventura was able to demonstrate that he took those steps.
A reaffirmation of patient autonomy
The ruling underscores the importance of informed consent in medical practice. Patients have the right to make decisions about their treatment when properly informed, and doctors who fulfill their duty to disclose risks and obtain consent should not be held liable when complications arise despite reasonable care.
As the Court noted, medicine is not an exact science. Unfavorable results, no matter how tragic, do not automatically imply malpractice—especially when the patient was given all the relevant information and still chose to proceed.
This decision offers reassurance to both patients and physicians: trust, clear communication, and transparency remain the cornerstones of a sound doctor–patient relationship.
In a decision penned by retired Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez, the Court’s Second Division upheld the dismissal of a malpractice complaint against Dr. Avelino P. Aventura, head of the Surgery Department at the Philippine Heart Center, over the death of his patient, Quintin Que.
The case was brought by Elpidio Que, who accused Dr. Aventura of negligence after his father, Quintin, suffered a fatal stroke during a failed stenting procedure intended to treat an aneurysm in the aortic arch.
The Court’s ruling provides a nuanced discussion of what constitutes medical malpractice. It reiterated that a physician is expected to exercise the degree of skill, care, and knowledge ordinarily possessed by others in the same field. One critical component of this duty is obtaining informed consent: a patient must agree to a procedure knowing the risks, benefits, and alternatives.
The case in context
Quintin Que first consulted Dr. Aventura after experiencing hoarseness caused by an aneurysm pressing on his vocal cords. A CT scan confirmed the aneurysm was life-threatening. Dr. Aventura recommended a two-step approach: first, a heart bypass, followed by a separate procedure to address the aneurysm. The bypass was performed successfully.
When the aneurysm worsened months later, Dr. Aventura outlined two options: open-chest surgery or a newer, less invasive stenting procedure. The Que family chose stenting, reassured by its lower risk profile compared to open surgery.
Importantly, Dr. Aventura informed the family that neither procedure guaranteed success, and he made clear that he would not personally perform the stenting as it was outside his expertise. He introduced Quintin to Belgian specialist Dr. Verhoeven, who was brought in to carry out the procedure. Quintin signed consent forms after being advised of the risks—including death.
Unfortunately, during the procedure, the custom stent could not be deployed properly due to the anatomy of Quintin’s artery. He suffered a stroke and never regained consciousness.
Why the Court cleared the doctor
The Regional Trial Court and Court of Appeals had both dismissed the complaint, and the Supreme Court agreed with their findings. The justices held that Dr. Aventura’s conduct met the expected standard of care: he made a medically appropriate recommendation, fully informed the patient and his family of the risks, obtained consent, and arranged for a qualified specialist to perform the procedure.
Expert witnesses testified that stenting was a reasonable choice under the circumstances, given the risks of open surgery. The Court stressed that an unsuccessful outcome alone is not proof of negligence.
In a concurring opinion, Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen added an important reminder: an attending physician’s responsibility does not end with a referral to a foreign specialist. The doctor must still ensure that the referral, the preparation, and the choice of procedure meet the standards of care and minimize risks. In this case, Dr. Aventura was able to demonstrate that he took those steps.
A reaffirmation of patient autonomy
The ruling underscores the importance of informed consent in medical practice. Patients have the right to make decisions about their treatment when properly informed, and doctors who fulfill their duty to disclose risks and obtain consent should not be held liable when complications arise despite reasonable care.
As the Court noted, medicine is not an exact science. Unfavorable results, no matter how tragic, do not automatically imply malpractice—especially when the patient was given all the relevant information and still chose to proceed.
This decision offers reassurance to both patients and physicians: trust, clear communication, and transparency remain the cornerstones of a sound doctor–patient relationship.
Jul 10, 2025
We are dedicated storytellers with a passion for bringing your brand to life. Our services range from news and media features to brand promotion and collaborations.
Interested? Visit our
Contact Us page for more information. To learn more about what we offer, check out our latest article on services and opportunities.
