MANILA, Philippines —The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that a doctor who gives proper medical advice, clearly explains the risks of a procedure, and obtains informed consent is not liable for medical malpractice.

In a decision penned by Retired Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez, the SC’s Second Division upheld the dismissal of a complaint against Dr. Avelino P. Aventura, Head of the Philippine Heart Center (PHC) Surgery Department, over the death of his patient, Quintin Que, following a failed stenting procedure.

The case stemmed from a lawsuit filed by Elpidio Que, who accused Dr. Aventura of malpractice in connection with his father Quintin’s death. Quintin initially consulted Dr. Aventura after experiencing hoarseness caused by an aneurysm in the aortic arch. A CT scan confirmed the condition was life-threatening.

Dr. Aventura recommended a two-step treatment: first a heart bypass, then an aneurysm repair. The bypass surgery was successful, but the aneurysm later worsened. Dr. Aventura presented two treatment options: an open-chest surgery or a newer, less invasive stenting procedure. After initially hesitating, the Que family agreed to the stenting, believing it was the safer option.

Dr. Aventura informed the family that both procedures carried risks, including death, and explained that he would not perform the stenting himself due to lack of expertise. He introduced them to Belgian specialist Dr. Verhoeven, who would conduct the procedure. Quintin signed the consent forms.

On the day of the operation, Dr. Verhoeven failed three times to insert the stent due to a bend in the artery. He later told the family that the stent was “faulty.” Quintin suffered a stroke and never regained consciousness.

The SC affirmed the findings of the Regional Trial Court and Court of Appeals, concluding that Dr. Aventura was not negligent.

The Court explained that medical malpractice arises when a physician fails to meet the standard of care expected of peers under similar circumstances, resulting in patient harm. It emphasized that a lack of informed consent—when a patient undergoes treatment without full disclosure of risks—can be a basis for malpractice.

In this case, the Court said Dr. Aventura provided complete information about the risks, clarified who would perform the procedure, and secured proper consent from the patient.

Expert witnesses testified that stenting was a reasonable and medically appropriate option for Quintin’s condition. Despite the risks, they said it remained a sound alternative to open-chest surgery.

In a concurring opinion, Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen underscored that a referring doctor must still meet the standard of care, even when another specialist performs the procedure. He noted that doctors must take all reasonable steps to minimize risks, not just explain them.