Hary D.

Dalisay JD- 3A
Amiel Bryan E. Manreal
Ginmari M. Ocampos

Issue #1: WON a Medical Malpractice Suit will prosper here (i.e. 4 legal definitions)?
Enumerate five (5), identify the parties for each, what are the charges for each, and how
would you defend your client as the counsel for the accused, and as the Prosecutor
(Criminal)/Counsel for the complainant (Civil)?

No, a medical malpractice suit will not prosper. Jurisprudence defines medical malpractice or
negligence to be composed of four elements - duty, breach, injury, and proximate cause. In the
given case, Dr. Obee did her duty to provide aid to Julla to the bs of her abilities and knowledge.
As such, there was no breach on her sworn obligation as a doctor, and no injury of which the
former was the proximate cause, was done to Julla.

The 5 bases for a medical malpractice suit are the following:

1. Captain of the ship doctrine

In this doctrine, the physician in charge in the management of all personne and activities
happening in the operating room is the one who will be charged with medical malpractice or
negligence. This is because said physician is the “captain” of the operation. As such, in
accordance with this doctrine, if injury happens to the patient, and it was proven that the
diligence needed to perform his duty was not exercised or observed, the “captain” may be held
liable for medical malpractice or negligence.
The parties involved in this case are the head physician as the defendant that would be
charged for medical negligence or malpractice, and the patient as the complainant.

2. Doctrine of Ostensible Agency or Doctrine of Estoppel

In this doctrine, the public is misled that a physician is an employee of the hospital. This is
because the latter holds out that the former is its agent. However, this doctrine is only applicable
when there really is an existing employer-employee relationship between the hospital and the
physician, the hospital can also be held liable.
The parties in this case are the physician who was negligent or who did not perform his
duties efficiently and to the best that he can, the hospital which is believed to have the power of
control over the physician, and the patient as the complainant. The physician will be held liable
for medical negligence or malpractice, while, the hospital will be held liable as a corporation.
Both are liable for the payment of damages.

3. Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitor

In this doctrine, the following requisites should be present: (1) the occurrence of an injury, (2)
the control and management by the defendant of the thing that caused the injury, (3) that in the
ordinary course of things, and had diligence been observed by the defendant, the injury would
not have occurred, and (4) the lack of explanation on the part of the defendant.
 The parties in this case are the physician who may be charged with medical malpractice
or negligence, and the patient as a complainant.

4. Doctrine of Superior Knowledge

In this doctrine, the physician is believed to have superior knowledge over the patient and the
patient’s case. As such, if injury is inflicted to a patient because of a physician’s erroneous order
or poor assessment, said physician may be held liable for medical malpractice or negligence.

The parties in this case are the physician who may be charged with medical malpractice
or negligence, and the patient as a complainant.

5. Doctrine of Corporate Responsibility

In this doctrine, a hospital should meet the standards of responsibilities set for the provision of
care to patients. One way to meet said standards is exercising due diligence in the selection of
employees are really doing their duties to give aid to patients. As such, in line with this doctrine,
a hospital can be held liable as a corporation, it it is proven that it did not observe due diligence
in assuring that its employees or agents are doing acts in fulfillment of their sworn obligations

The parties in this case are the physician who was negligent or who did not perform his
duties efficiently and to the best that he can, the hospital which is believed to have the power of
control over the physician, and the patient as the complainant. The physician will be held liable
for medical negligence or malpractice, while, the hospital will be held liable as a corporation.
Both are liable for the payment of damages.

If I were the counsel for either the complainant or the defendant, I would defend my client by
preparing and providing expert witnesses. This is because in medical negligence or malpractice
cases, the testimonies of experts are important to overcome the presumption of negligence in
the case of the accused, and to prove the negligence in the case of the complainant. In other
words, as a counsel in such cases for either of the parties, it is the presence of the expert
witnesses which would change the tide in our favor, as the case may be.

Issue #2: WON there is contributory negligence here on the part of Julla, each of her
sisters, Joshwa or Geerald? Explain why, for each of them. What is volenti non fit
injuria?

No, there is no contributory negligence at all. This is because there is no filing of a complaint
and if there’s one, none of the mentioned persons is liable for such since as to the part of Julla,
she is the one who opt for an abortion and the doctrine of volenti non fit injuria is applicable.
Volenti non fit injuria is a Latin phrase for “to a willing person, it is not a wrong.” This legal
doctrine states that a person who knowingly and voluntarily risks danger cannot claim for any
resulting injury. This is a common-law basis for Assumption of Risk Doctrine.
Issue #3: WON there is vicarious liability here, for each of the three (3) hospitals, and to
whom? Explain each.

There is no vicarious liability for each of the three hospitals. There is no vicarious liability on the
part of the 3 hospitals. Under the law, the doctrine of vicarious liability is one where a person,
usually of a supervisory character, assumes responsibility for the acts or negligence of another,
who is usually a subordinate. In the given case, Dr. Obee did her best to assess Julla's
situation, and seeing that it is not manageable, requested for the latter's immediate transfer. As
such, there was no negligence or omission on the part of Dr. Julia. Hence, there is no vicarious
liability on the part of the 3 hospitals.

Issue #4: Does the Doctrine of res ipsa loquitor apply against the hospital upon the
finding of a ruptured catheter? Any other application of the same doctrine in the case
presented?

No, the Doctrine of res ipsa loquitor does not apply against the hospital upon the finding of a
ruptured catheter. Jurisprudence states that this doctrine has the following requisites that should
be present: (1) the occurrence of an injury, (2) the control and management by the defendant of
the thing that caused the injury, (3) that in the ordinary course of things, and had diligence been
observed by the defendant, the injury would not have occurred, and (4) the lack of explanation
on the part of the defendant. In the case at bar, the ruptured catheter was not under the control
and management of attending physician of VENUs-Gen hospital. Hence, the doctrine of res ipsa
loquitor does not apply.

Issue #5: Consequences of the live birth of Bhea to Joshwa? To Julla? To Geerald?

Bhea, being an illegitimate child, led to the following consequences: As to Julla: She has the full
parental authority of the child as provided by the Family Code. As To Geerald: Being the
biological father, he shall provide child support. As To Joshwa: Being the husband of Julla, can
sue his wife for adultery, has the right to impugn the legitimacy of the child, and can adopt the
child. The child can inherit as provided by Civil Code. As to Mahjha: Being the wife of Geerald,
can sue the latter for concubinage.

#6: Do you think Hospital Income Benefit (HIB) should be regulated?

Hospital income benefits should be regulated to avoid abuse. This is because although its
objective is to provide and financially support the insured, such, would still be prone to abuse if
there is no proper procedure as to how it would be procured. On the other hand, in the case of
hospitals, the payments made through the use of HIB should also be monitored to prevent
unjust application. In other words, HIB should be regulated wholly for the benefit of the insured.