The case of Miguel Kim vs. Slimmers World International (G.R. No. 206306. April 3, 2024)
Photo from Unsplash | Jonathan Borba
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
Settled is the rule that in actions based on quasi-delict, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove the presence of the foregoing elements by preponderance of evidence. They cannot rely on mere allegations but must present such evidence more convincing as worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto.
In this case, however, while the death certificate shows the damage or injury sustained by Adelaida, specifically, cerebral hemorrhage and severe hypertension, the totality of the evidence failed to establish the second and third elements of a quasi-delict.
Slimmers World, operated by Behavior Modification, Inc., is a Philippine corporation engaged in the business of managing a chain of fitness centers, Cuesta was employed as its fitness trainer while Quinto was its managing director.
On April 8, 1991, Adelaida, then 50 years old, became a lifetime member of Slimmers World. Nine years later, in June 2000, she availed of the fitness center’s biometrics program or the 12-visit personal training program with Cuesta as her personal trainer. In the morning of July 25, 2000, Adelaida went for her last session with Cuesta.
After her workout and while still within the premises, Adelaida complained of headache, nausea, and discomfort. The gym staff took her blood pressure which yielded a high result. Thus, she took her medication for hypertension. As she was changing her clothes, she vomited. Consequently, the gym staff brought her to Our Lady of Grace Hospital (OLGH) in a tricycle.
At 9:33 a.m., the attending physician diagnosed her to be suffering from essential hypertension.
At 12:50 p.m. of the same day, Adelaida was transferred to the Chinese General Hospital (CGH), which was equipped with more advanced facilities for better monitoring. There, she immediately underwent a CT scan which revealed a mass in her brain. The doctors informed Miguel that they could no longer do anything. Three days later, or on July 28, 2000, Adelaida died due to cerebral hemorrhage and severe hypertension.
On October 17, 2000, Miguel sent a letter to Slimmers World, Cuesta, and Quinto demanding the payment of damages as their negligence caused the death of his wife. When they denied liability, Miguel filed a Complaint before the RTC on November 28, 2000. In their Answer, Slimmers World, Cuesta, and Quinto insisted that Adelaida’s concealment of her hypertension and their observance of proper procedure in medical emergencies absolved them from liability.
The issue in this case is whether Slimmers World, et al., should be held liable for damages resulting from the death of Adelaida to which the court ruled in the negative.
After a judicious review of the case records, the Court finds that Slimmers World, et al., can neither be held answerable for contractual negligence nor for quasi-delict.
Slimmer’s World is not answerable for contractual negligence
The Court has consistently held that in actions involving contractual negligence, once a breach of contract is proved, the defendant is presumed negligent and must prove not being at fault. For the presumption to apply, however, the plaintiff must first establish the existence of the contract and the defendant’s failure to perform his or her obligation therein.
In this case, Miguel presented only two witnesses at the who were not even at the fitness center at the time of the incident. Moreover, Miguel offered pieces of documentary evidence, but failed to present the necessary witnesses who would properly authenticate the same and attest to their contents or import.
Jurisprudence dictates that “[a]s a prerequisite to its admission in evidence, the identity and authenticity of a private document must be properly laid and reasonably established.” This is in line with Rule 132, Section 20, 2019 Amendments to the 1989 Revised Rules on Evidence (2019 Revised Rules on Evidence), which states that the identification and authentication of a private document may only be proven by either: (1) anyone who saw the document executed or written; (2) evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker; or (3) other evidence showing its due execution and authenticity. Indeed, an unverified and unidentified private document cannot be given probative value.
As for the finding that Slimmers World, et al., breached its duty to provide medical supervision as they represented in newspaper advertisements, the Court finds the same to be factually and legally unsupported. It should be noted that it is the Member’s Handout, and not the newspaper advertisement, that is the perfected contract between the parties as it bears the signature of Adelaida indicating her acceptance. As such, while the advertisement states that “all programs are under medical supervision,” the Member’s Handout clarifies that for medical consultations and to service members more efficiently, appointments are scheduled one week in advance. Thus, the medical supervision offered merely consists of free consultations subject to prior appointment.
The most important point though was the fact that not only was there a doctor on duty who arrived later that day; there were also, in fact, registered nurses and physical therapists present at the time of the incident. Witnesses Merahflor Galang (Galang) and Judith Sayson (Sayson), who took Adelaida’s blood pressure and brought her to the hospital, are registered nurses. Witness Alex Buenavista (Buenavista), a physical therapist, was with Adelaida at the beginning of her workout up until she was taken to OLGH. Contrary to Miguel’s claims, Adelaida was, in truth, under medical supervision.
In view of the foregoing, Slimmers World, et al., cannot be held liable for contractual negligence.
Slimmers World cannot be held liable for negligence based on quasi-delict under Article 2176 of the Civil Code.
Jurisprudence provides the following requisites to establish a quasi-delict:
- the damage suffered by the plaintiff;
- the act or omission of the defendant constituting fault or negligence; and
- the causal connection between the act and the damage sustained by the plaintiff, or the proximate cause.
Settled is the rule that in actions based on quasi-delict, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove the presence of the foregoing elements by preponderance of evidence. They cannot rely on mere allegations but must present such evidence more convincing as worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto. The law presumes that a person takes ordinary care of their concerns and that private transactions have been fair and regular. Hence, negligence cannot be presumed but must be proven.
In this case, however, while the death certificate shows the damage or injury sustained by Adelaida, specifically, cerebral hemorrhage and severe hypertension, the totality of the evidence failed to establish the second and third elements of a quasi-delict.
The second element requires that the act or omission constitutes negligence. Negligence is defined as “the failure to observe for the protection of the interests of another person, that degree of care, precaution and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person suffers injury.” It is the “omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.”
The Court of Appeals ruled that Slimmers World, et al.’s negligence was shown by the fact that they did not do anything to address Adelaida’s headache and even proceeded with the workout. Buenavista testified that Adelaida complained of a headache between 6:30 a.m. and 7:30 a.m. 56 At almost 9:00 a.m., she was seated on the bench being assisted by gym staff. According to the appellate court, this presupposes that Adelaida complained of a headache before the workout.
The Court, however, cannot fully adopt these assumptions as a more thorough examination of the case records controverts the same. In the first place, in his own Pre-Trial Brief, Miguel expressly averred that Adelaida complained of a headache after her exercises. In fact, all of the pieces of evidence presented by Miguel would point out that it is only after her exercises that Adelaida experienced headaches.
Accordingly, Adelaida had no complaints before she began her exercises. The moment she complained of a headache, the gym staff told her to sit on a couch, took her blood pressure, asked her if she had any medications and if so, told her to take them, and convinced her to be brought to a hospital.
Further, while Miguel presented Adelaida’s personal data sheet and dietary prescription purportedly showing that she was hypertensive, said documents were not only unverified but were also dated sometime in 1991 or nine years prior to the 12-visit program. As such, the fitness center cannot be faulted for relying on a more recent declaration of health made in June 2000.
Moreover, Rule 131, Section 2 (a), 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence, is clear: “Whenever a party has, by his or her own declaration, act, or omission, intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a particular thing true, and to act upon such belief, he or she cannot, in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act or omission, be permitted to falsify it.” Since Adelaida’s declaration led the fitness center to believe that she was not a high-risk client, the same could no longer be changed to hold the fitness center accountable for relying on the same.
Notwithstanding Adelaida’s concealments, records reveal that efforts were exerted to determine her general health and ability to withstand the program. The fitness center conducted several fitness and cardiovascular tests, as well as a body composition training at the commencement of the program. In fact, she had already finished 11 sessions without any untoward incident or feedback.
As for the third element in quasi-delict actions, the plaintiff must prove proximate causation or the causal connection between the act and the damage sustained. Jurisprudential precedents define proximate cause as “that cause which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury and without which the result would not have occurred.” An injury or damage is deemed proximately caused by an act or omission when it was a direct result or a reasonably probable consequence thereof. The rule, therefore, is that imputations of negligence cannot prosper in the absence of proximate causation.
Apart from Miguel’s assertions that his wife’s death was proximately caused by the fitness center’s negligence, no sufficient evidence was presented to substantiate the same. In fact, Dr. Quilala even clarified that Adelaida’s diagnosis of essential hypertension “indicates that no specific medical cause can be found to explain a patient’s condition.” In accordance with jurisprudence, the Court cannot preclude the probability that Adelaida’s headache and eventual death might have been due to factors other than her workout at the fitness center.
Source:
Miguel Kim vs. Slimmers World International (G.R. No. 206306. April 3, 2024)
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/0917-5772207/ 09778050020.
All rights reserved.