Masculino, Jerlyn Anne C.

Medicine III

G.R. No. 127590 (PSI vs Agana)

When there is an employer-employee relationship, it means that the employer
already has the responsibility over its employee. In this case of medical negligence, when a
doctor is part of a medical institution, that institution has the responsibility of monitoring all of
its employees since they are not only carrying their individual names but the name of the
institution as well. Hospitals sometimes become known because of the doctors that are
affiliated with them and vice versa. Hence, as much as they gain from their doctors’ hard
work, they should also help their doctors whenever events such as negligence happen.
Though, there was no enough evidence on the employment of Dr. Ampil to the hospital, the
hospital itself acknowledged that he is their agent and that the operation happened in their
institution. As for Dr. Ampil, I believe that it is part of the surgical procedure to check for
possible retention of foreign objects in the patient’s body and I think that it is not only the
duty of the main surgeon but of the whole team as well. Since they also knew that 2 gauzes
were missing, they should not have closed the incision yet without assuring that the missing
objects are not inside Mrs. Ampil’s body.

G.R. No. 89572 (NMAT)

Although NMAT is not really a basis on our performance in medical school, it kind of
screens future medical students on their intellectual abilities and competence. Since
medicine is a hard course not only because there are a lot of things to study upon, but most
importantly it deals with the health and life of human beings. Being a doctor is a very big
responsibility, thus in studying medicine or in pursuing a medical career, one must meet the
requirements. In this case, the respondent must follow the rules of medical schools and
NMAT per se. Since this is a general rule to all aspiring doctors (only allowed 3 chances to
take NMAT), no one should be exempted from this.

G.R. No. 118141 (Rueda vs Pascasio)

This case became a “ping-pong” style for 9 prosecutors since they have different
recommendations. In this case of negligence, although it's the anesthesiologist who had lack
of care in administering anesthesia which caused the patient's death, the whole surgical
team should have helped and communicate with each other to avoid this kind of mistake and
assure that the whole surgical procedure will go well. In addition, the doctor should do his
best in practicing his profession, focus on his role in the procedure, and not rely on his
teammates or colleagues since every one has his own role. In this case, since the cause of
death is due to the improper administration of anesthesia which is an independent duty of
the anesthesiologist, the anesthesiologist himself is at fault.