Lumantas VS Calapiz
Lumantas VS Calapiz
CALAPIZ
-Spouses Calapiz brought their son Hanz to Misamis Occidental Province Hospital for
emergency appendectomy.
-Hanz was attended to by Dr. Lumantas
-Dr. Lumantas suggested that Hanz also undergo circumcision, without added cost to
spare him the pain.
-The parents agreed.
-The following day, Hanz is complaining pain in his penis which exhibited blisters and
swollen testicles.
-The parents noticed that Hanz urinated abnormally after Dr. Lumantas forcibly
removed catheter.
-Dr. Lumantas said that said abnormality is normal.
-Hanz was discharged.
-Days after, Hanz was confined again due to abscess formation between the base and
shaft of his penis.
-Dr. Lumantas presumed that the ulceration was brought about the appendicitis and
refer them to a urologist Dr.Go.
-Dr. Go diagnosed Hanz with damaged urethra.
-Hanz undergone 3 operations but urethra cannot be fully repaired.
-Calapiz Spouses charged Dr. Lumantas of reckless imprudence resulting in serious
physical injuries.
-One of the surgeons was made as expert witness and said that the injury to the
urethra was because of a trauma.
-Dr. Lumantas denied the charge and argued that everything he did to Hanz was with
parent’s consent and discharged him when Hanz has no fever and was okay in the
following checkup.
ISSUE: WON CA erred in affirming petitioner’s civil liability despite his acquittal of
the crime charged.
RULING: It is axiomatic that every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly
liable. Acquittal of accused of crime charged does not necessarily extinguishes civil
liability.