Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 96 views

    Professional Services v. CA

    Uploaded by

    audreydql5
    The Supreme Court ruled that Professional Services, Inc (PSI), the owner of Medical City General Hospital, is liable for damages in a medical malpractice case. PSI argued it was not liable as there was no employer-employee relationship between it and the doctors involved. However, the Court found PSI could be held liable based on the doctrines of respondeat superior, apparent authority, corporate negligence, and obligations under the Civil Code. As the hospital held the doctors out as providing care under its name and failed to properly supervise them, PSI could not avoid responsibility for negligence that occurred in treating the patient.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Professional Services v. CA

    Uploaded by

    audreydql5
    96 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that Professional Services, Inc (PSI), the owner of Medical City General Hospital, is liable for damages in a medical malpractice case. PSI argued it was not liable as there was no employer-employee relationship between it and the doctors involved. However, the Court found PSI could be held liable based on the doctrines of respondeat superior, apparent authority, corporate negligence, and obligations under the Civil Code. As the hospital held the doctors out as providing care under its name and failed to properly supervise them, PSI could not avoid responsibility for negligence that occurred in treating the patient.

    Original Description:

    Labor Relations

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that Professional Services, Inc (PSI), the owner of Medical City General Hospital, is liable for damages in a medical malpractice case. PSI argued it was not liable as there was no employer-employee relationship between it and the doctors involved. However, the Court found PSI could be held liable based on the doctrines of respondeat superior, apparent authority, corporate negligence, and obligations under the Civil Code. As the hospital held the doctors out as providing care under its name and failed to properly supervise them, PSI could not avoid responsibility for negligence that occurred in treating the patient.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    96 views2 pages

    Professional Services v. CA

    Uploaded by

    audreydql5
    The Supreme Court ruled that Professional Services, Inc (PSI), the owner of Medical City General Hospital, is liable for damages in a medical malpractice case. PSI argued it was not liable as there was no employer-employee relationship between it and the doctors involved. However, the Court found PSI could be held liable based on the doctrines of respondeat superior, apparent authority, corporate negligence, and obligations under the Civil Code. As the hospital held the doctors out as providing care under its name and failed to properly supervise them, PSI could not avoid responsibility for negligence that occurred in treating the patient.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Professional Services, Inc.

    vs CA
    G.R. No. 126297, G.R. No. 126467, G.R. No. 127590, Feb. 11, 2008
    SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

    FACTS: On April 4, 1984, NATIVIDAD AGANA was admitted at the MEDICAL CITY GENERAL HOSPITAL
    (owned by PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC.) because of difficulty of bowel movement and bloody anal
    discharge. DR. MIGUEL AMPIL (neighbour of the Aganas and surgeon/consultant at Medical City) diagnosed her
    to be suffering from cancer of the sigmoid. Seven days after, Dr. Ampil performed an anterior resection surgery
    upon Natividad but during the process he obtained ATTY. ENRIQUE AGANA’S (husband of Natividad) consent to
    let DR. JUAN FUENTES to perform hysterectomy upon his wife (Natividad needed this surgery nakita lang during
    operation). Dr. Fuentes successfully performed the operation and Dr. Ampil took over, completed the anterior
    resection surgery and closed the incision EVEN if the attending nurses told him that there are two lacking S P O N
    G E S (sorry, feeling ko nasa Grey’s Anatomy ako). After a couple of days, Natividad complained of excruciating
    pain in her anal region but the doctors told her that such was a natural consequence.

    On May 9, 1984, Natividad and Enrique went to USA to seek further treatment regarding her cancerous nodes until
    she was free of cancer. Three months later, they went back to the Philippines while Natividad was still suffering
    from pains. Later on, her daughter (it did not say pero I assume eto ‘yung doctor nila na anak na student dati ni Dr.
    Ampil) found a piece of gauze protruding from her vagina. Dr. Ampil was immediately informed, went to
    Natividad’s house, and extracted a gauze measuring 1.5 inches in width. Dr. Ampil assured Natividad that the pain
    would soon vanish.

    But, no, the pain did not vanish, it intensified, so they seek treatment at POLYMEDIC GENERAL HOSPITAL
    where a doctor detected the presence of a foreign object in her vagina – a foul-smelling gauze measuring 1.5 inches
    in width. The gauze had badly infected her vaginal vault and the doctors were forced to perform another surgery
    which forced stool to excrete through the vagina and another one to remedy the situation.

    On Nov. 12, 1984, Natividad and her husband filed with the RTC of QUEZON CITY a complaint for damages
    against PSI, Dr. Ampil and Dr. Fuentes. However, on Feb. 16, 1986, while pending the outcome of the case,
    Natividad died and she was duly substituted by her children.

    Seven (FUCKING) years later, the RTC rendered judgment in favour of spouses Agana finding the three jointly and
    severally liable. On appeal, the CA affirmed the said judgment with modification in the sense that the complaint
    against Dr. Fuentes was dismissed.

    PSI, Dr. Ampil and the Aganas filed with the SC separate petitions for review on certiorari. PSI contends that there
    is no employer-employee relationship between it and its consultant, hence, it cannot be held liable.

    ISSUE: W/N THERE IS AN EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE HOSPITAL AND


    ITS CONSULTANTS AND W/N PSI IS LIABLE IN THIS CASE.

    RULING: SC held that PSI is liable. Previously, employers cannot be held liable for the fault or negligence of its
    professionals. However, this doctrine has weakened since courts came to realize that modern hospitals are taking a
    more active role in supplying and regulating medical care to its patients, by employing staff of physicians, among
    others. Hence, there is no reason to exempt hospitals from the universal rule of respondeat superior.

    The court mentioned the Ramos v. CA doctrine on E-E relationship:


    - For purposes of apportioning responsibility in medical negligence cases, an employer-employee
    relationship in effect exists between hospitals and their attending and visiting physicians. [LABOR
    LESSON: power to hire, fire, power of control]
    There is also the agency principle of apparent authority/agency by estoppel:
    - Imposes liability because of the actions of a principal or employer in somehow misleading the public
    into believing that the relationship or the authority exists [see NCC 1869]
    - PSI publicly displays in the Medical City lobby the names and specializations of their physicians.
    Hence, PSI is now estopped from passing all the blame to the physicians whose names it proudly
    paraded in the public directory, leading the public to believe that it vouched for their skill and
    competence.
    - If doctors do well, hospital profits financially, so when negligence mars the quality of its services, the
    hospital should not be allowed to escape liability for its agents’ acts.
    There is also the doctrine of corporate negligence/corporate responsibility:
    - This is the judicial answer to the problem of allocating hospital’s liability for the negligent acts of
    health practitioners, absent facts to support the application of respondeat superior.
    - This provides for the duties expected [from hospitals]. In this case, PSI failed to perform the duty of
    exercising reasonable care to protect from harm all patients admitted into its facility for medical
    treatment. PSI failed to conduct an investigation of the matter reported in the note of the count nurse,
    and this established PSI’s part in the dark conspiracy of silence and concealment about the gauzes.
    - The corporate negligence doctrine imposes several duties on a hospital: (1) to use reasonable care in
    the maintenance of safe and adequate facilities and equipment; (2) to select and retain only competent
    physicians; (3) to oversee as to patient care all persons who practice medicine within its walls; and (4)
    to formulate, adopt, and enforce adequate rules and policies to ensure quality care for its patients.
    These special tort duties arise from the special relationship existing between a hospital or nursing
    home and its patients, which are based on the vulnerability of the physically or mentally ill persons and
    their inability to provide care for themselves.
    PSI also liable under NCC 2180:
    - It failed to adduce evidence to show that it exercised the diligence of a good father of the family in the
    accreditation and supervision of Dr. Ampil.

    You might also like