VIDEO 5: CHAPTER 5 - Negligence and independent professional.

But there is
evidence presented by the clients not by
malpractice:
respondeat superior, not by employer but
as an implied employer under ostensible
Question: which of the following situations would
agency. The names of the doctors were
possibly cause a nurse to be sued due to
brandished by the hospital, it is as if the
negligence?
doctors aren't employed to the hospital but
Answer: Nurse gave a client wrong medication, and
the hospital appears like that in public. Even
an hour later, client complained of dyspnea.
if they are not your “employees'' they are
treated as such in this liability. Bisan pag di
Question: when a nurse volunteers to work in a
na nimo sila employee pero imong gina
hospital setting and she commits a mistake,who is
pagawas kay mura nimo silay employee,
who is legally responsible?
responsible na ang hospital ana. So meaning
Answer: volunteer nurse, hospital and the nurse in
ang 15 million pesos na liability sa surgeons
charge.
kay liability sad sa hospital.
- One of the unique questions in nursing
- Liable pud ang hospital kay they never
because in law, the answer could be the
investigate the situation. Nag reklamo na
nurse, nurse and the doctor or the nurse,
ang pt nga sakit ang tiyan niya. They knew
doctor and hospital or any combination.
kay kabalo sila nga na bilin nila ang
- The volunteer nurse, hospital and nurse in
sponge. Giignan ra nila nga normal effect ra
charge are the ones reliable in this case
ang kasakit sa surgery
because there is a possibility that they are
solidarily reliable.
Civil Code (RA 386)
Article 2176 (negligence liability): Whoever by act
Professional Services Inc v The Court of Appeals
or omission causes damage to another, there being
and Natividad and Enrique Agana
fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the
- (G.R. No. 126297, Feb. 11, 2008) (en banc)
damage done, Such fault or negligence, if there is
- Famous missing sponge case - surgeon left
no pre-existing contractual relation between the
behind 2 sponge.
parties, is called a quasi- delict and is governed by
- Client had Cancer of sigmoid colon spread
the provisions of this Chapter.
to the patient's ovary and needed
- So this is the provision of article 2176 of
hysterectomy, sponges missing and
quasi-delict in the Philippines whoever by
documented by nurse but surgeons did
act or omission causes injury or damage
nothing about itrectovaginal fistula: stools
such fault or negligence you are liable.
exit vagina.
- The last paragraph says that it is only
- PSI liable to the Aganas not under
applicable if walay pre-existing contractual
Respondeat superior, but under the
obligation. Why man? Kay if naay contract
doctrine of ostensible agency for the
dili na siya quasi-delict, mag file nakag
negligence of dr agana, and pro hac vice,
breach of contract. However naay
under one principle of corporate negligence
exceptions sa rule nga bisan naay contract
for its failure to perform its duties as a
maka sue ka ug quasi-delict that is if the
hospital.
breach of contract was so gross that you
- Why not under respondeat superior? The
can still sue quasi-delict. Example ana kay
hospital can only be held liable if it is proven
airline case: nga ang pinoy sa airplane, first
that the hospital is the employer of the
class siya naka ingkod dayun naay puti.
surgeon, that is when the hospital is held
Then gi move nila ang pinoy sa economy
liable. But in this case the hospital is not the
class kay para sa puti iyang seat so nag file si
employer because the doctors were only
pinoy ug case sa airline. Although naay
consultants. Consultant = expert =
breach of contract (nga dapat first class siya
 pero gi move siyag economy) but the way
nga gi move siya out of racism. So quasi-
delict siya na hulog.
Article 2180 (respondeat superior): The obligation
imposed by article2176 is demandable not only for
one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of
person for whom one is responsible. The father
and in case of his death or incapacity, the mother,
are responsible for the damages caused by the
minor children who live in their company.
Guardians are liable for damages caused by the
minors or incapacitated persons who are under
their authority and live in their company.
- solidarily liability provision wherein the
hospital is held liable for the neglect of the
nurse and/or physician under hospital’s
supervision.
- To prove that the hospital is liable, it must
show that the hospital itself was negligent.
Wala nag himo ug supervision, wala gi
tarong ug pili ang nurses ug doctors, walay
trainings. How to prove? Understaffed ang
hopsital-Nurse-pt ratio. Usual ration dapat
kay 1:4 pero ang ratio kay 1:50. Another kay
dapat 8 ka doctors naka duty pero 2 ra ang
nag duty, tulog pa ang isa ka doctor. Kulang
kag supplies, wa nag investigate nga naay
complain unta so these are the reasons why
solidarily liable ang doctor.
The owners and managers of establishments or
enterprises (industry for profit) are likewise
responsible for damages caused by their
employees and household helpers acting within
the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the
former are not engaged in any business or
industry.
- This means nga ang mga boss kay liable sa
mistakes sa mga employees.
The State is responsible in like manner when it acts
through a special agent; but not when the damage
has been caused by the official to whom the task
done properly pertains, in which case what is
provided in Article 2176 shall be applicable. Lastly,
teachers or heads of establishments of arts and
trades shall be liable for damages caused by their
pupils and students or apprentices, so long as they
remain in their custody. The responsibility treated
in this article shall cease when the persons herein
mentioned prove that they observed all the
diligence of a good facher of a family to prevent
damage.
- Meaning kung employer ka, unsa may
buhaton nimo para dili mahimong liable sa
mistakes saimong mga employee? Imong
iprove nga nag supervise jud ka, nga walay
understaff nahitabo nga nag hire ka ug mga
tao nga fit ana nga trabaho.
(Example: Proof of seminar-evidence para
dili liable ang hospital).
- Article 2180 also states that the state is not
liable for any mistake for as long as the
agent is not a special agent. Kung normal
employee raka doing the work under sa
employee sa government, dili nimo ma sue
ang government. Example: driver sa
garbage truck nga ga trabaho sa
government unya naka bangga ang driver
na injured/namatay ang na bangga, kinsa
may apason sa civil liablity? Kinsa man
imong ipabayad? Di man kabayad ang driver
so sa employer ka. Ang employer man kay
ang government either ang city/province;
dili nimo ma kasohan ang state as long as
the driver is performing his administrial
function according to his duty as a driver
then you cannot sue the state. It needs a
law to allocate funds para ma bayaran ang
na banggan sa driver.
Article 1431 (estoppel): Through estoppel an
admission or representation is rendered conclusive
upon the person making it, and cannot be denied
or disproved as against the person relying thereon.
- Recap: the hospital held liable because it
seems employer sila sa surgeons, anong
tawag ng responsibility? Answer: doctrine
of ostensible agency.
- Other term for doctrine of ostensible
agency is estoppel. You are estopped by
your representation. Since you made it
appear to the public that the surgeon are
your employees then you cannot take that
back and held liable to your representation.
Article 1869 (agency): Agency may be express, or
implied from the acts of the principal, from his
silence or lack of action, or his failure to repudiate
the agency, knowing that another person is acting
on his behalf without authority.
- Agency is something that exists when you
make it so that other person speaks or acts
for you. So if you're a doctor that works in a
hospital there could be among them an
implied agency among them.
- So sa case ni PSI versus agana ang ingon sa
hospital nga di daw nila employee si agana
kay consultant ra siya. Pero ang question sa
court kung dili employee nila nganong naka
butang ang ngalan ni agana sa lobby sa
hospital. It is as if agent/employee sila sa
hospital. Walay warning or pahibalo sa
patients nga ang surgeons/doctors nga ga
handle sailaha kay dili diay employee nila.
So the mata sa patients nga employee sila
sa hospital kay mao ang gina pakita sa
hospital therefore liable japon si hospital.
So ingani ang agency japon mu work.
(respondeat superior: article 2176 in relation to
article 2180 of the civil code only exist if there is
employment relationship)
- So kung dili applicable ang respondeat
superior mu recourse ka sa doctrine of
estoppel or doctrine of ostensible agency.
Doctrine of ostensible agency: Article 2176 in
relation to Article 1431 (estoppel) and Article 1869
(agency) of the Civil Code or the principle of
apparent authority- if there is no employment
relationship but the hospital holds out to the
patient that the doctor is its agent.
- Example naa kay uyab sa eyes sa law walay
legal bond. So naa kay friend nga gusto
iinvite imong uyab nga mag hatag ug talk,
diba dili dapat ikaw iyang suguon ug hatag
sa invitation kay wala man moy legal bond
but because naa moy connection mao
saimo niya gipa agi ang invitation. Ingana
sad ang ostensible agency ga work.
- Ostensible means obvious. Although not
there but obvious na meron
Hospital may be directly liable to the patient for its
own negligence or failure to follow established
standards of conduct to which it should conform as
a corporation While Dr. Ampil may have had the
primary responsibility of notifying Natividad about
the missing gauzes, PSI imposed upon itself the
separate and independent responsibility of
initiating the inquiry into the missing gauzes, The
purpose of the first would have been to apprise
Natividad of what transpired during her surgery,
while the purpose of the second would have been
to pinpoint any lapse in procedure that led to the
gauze count discrepancy to prevent recurrence
thereof and to determine corrective measures that
would ensure the safety of Natividad. That Dr.
ampil negligently failed to notify Natividad did not
release Psi from its self-imposed separate
responsibility.
- Meaning nga ang hospital mismo walanag
investigate sa unusual happening even
though gi note na sa nurse ang nahitabo
makes them solidarly liable for their own
negligence and failure to investigate.
Doctor ampil: lead surgeon-liable
Doctor Fuentes: not liable by res ipsa loquitor; just
there to perform the hysterectomy. Kay si fuentes
mag remove ra ug ovaries after ato ni lakaw na
siya. Nag ask napod siyag permission to remove
himself sa OR. So si doc ampil ang responsible kay
si fuentes wala pagka wala sa sponge ug sa pag
declare nga nawala ang duha ka sponge.
Wherefore, the second motion for reconsideration
is DENIED and the motions for intervention are
NOTED.
Professional Services, inc. is ORDERED pro hac vice
to pay Natividad (substituted by her children
Marcelino Agana Ill, Enrique Agana, Ir., Emma
Agana-Andaya, Jesus Agana and Raymund Agana)
and Enrique Agana the total amount of P15 million,
subject to 12% p,a, Interest from the finality of this
resolution to full satisfaction.
No further pleadings in any party shall be
entertained in this case.
Let the long delay entry of judgment be made in
this case upon receipt by all concerned parties of
this resolution.