Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
*
G.R. No. 126297. January 31, 2007.
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
479
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000162b535a6ecb1560f1d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/30
4/11/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 513
480
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000162b535a6ecb1560f1d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/30
4/11/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 513
481
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000162b535a6ecb1560f1d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/30
4/11/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 513
482
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000162b535a6ecb1560f1d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/30
4/11/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 513
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
_______________
484
4
On April 11, 1984, Dr. Ampil, assisted by the medical staff
of the Medical City Hospital, performed an anterior
resection surgery on Natividad. He found that the
malignancy in her sigmoid area had spread on her left
ovary, necessitating the removal of certain portions of it.
Thus, Dr. Ampil obtained the consent of Natividad’s
husband, Enrique Agana, to permit Dr. Juan Fuentes,
respondent in G.R. No. 126467, to perform hysterectomy on
her.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000162b535a6ecb1560f1d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/30
4/11/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 513
_______________
485
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000162b535a6ecb1560f1d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/30
4/11/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 513
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000162b535a6ecb1560f1d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/30
4/11/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 513
SO ORDERED.”
_______________
488
_______________
489
_______________
491
_______________
27 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1174; Moore v. Ivey, (Tex. Civ. App.) 264 S.W. 283; 21
R.C. L. 388.
10 157 So. 328 Fla. (1934)
492
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000162b535a6ecb1560f1d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/30
4/11/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 513
[T]hat cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence unbroken by any efficient
intervening cause, produces the injury and without which the result would not
have occurred. And more comprehensively, the proximate cause is that acting first
and producing the injury, either immediately or by setting other events in motion,
all constituting a natural and continuous chain of events, each having a close
causal connection with the immediate predecessor, the final event in the chain
immediately effecting the injury as a natural and probable result of the cause
which first acted, under which circumstances that the person responsible for the
first event should, as an ordinarily prudent and intelligent person, have
reasonable ground to expect at the moment of his act or default that an injury to
some person might probably result therefrom.
493
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000162b535a6ecb1560f1d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/30
4/11/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 513
_______________
13 Ramos v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124354, December 29, 1999, 321
SCRA 584.
14 Africa v. Caltex (Phils.) Inc., 123 Phil. 280; 16 SCRA 448 (1966).
494
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000162b535a6ecb1560f1d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/30
4/11/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 513
_______________
495
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000162b535a6ecb1560f1d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/30
4/11/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 513
_______________
496
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000162b535a6ecb1560f1d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/30
4/11/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 513
assigned tasks even though the former are not engaged in any
business or industry.
x x x x x x
_______________
20 Id.
497
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000162b535a6ecb1560f1d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 19/30
4/11/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 513
498
and judgment 24
in rendering medical services sans
interference. Hence, when a doctor practices medicine in a
hospital setting, the hospital and its employees are deemed
to subserve him in his ministrations25to the patient and his
actions are of his own responsibility.
The case
26
of Schloendorff v. Society of New York
Hospital was then considered an authority for this view.
The “Schloendorff doctrine” regards a physician, even if
employed by a hospital, as an independent contractor
because of the skill he exercises and the lack of control
exerted over his work. Under this doctrine, hospitals are
exempt from the application of the respondeat superior
principle for fault or negligence committed by physicians in
the discharge of their profession.
However, the efficacy of the foregoing doctrine has
weakened with the significant developments in medical
care. Courts came to realize that modern hospitals are
increasingly taking active role in supplying and regulating
medical care to patients. No longer were a hospital’s
functions limited to furnishing room, food, facilities for
treatment and operation,27 and attendants for its patients.
Thus, in Bing v. Thunig, the New York Court of Appeals
deviated from the Schloendorff doctrine, noting that
modern hospitals actually do far more than provide
facilities for treatment. Rather, they regularly
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000162b535a6ecb1560f1d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 20/30
4/11/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 513
499
_______________
500
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000162b535a6ecb1560f1d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 22/30
4/11/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 513
_______________
29 Black’s Law Dictionary (6th Ed. 1990) 1100. The terms “ostensible
agency,” “agency by estoppel,” “apparent authority,” and “holding out”
tend to be used interchangeably by the courts to refer to this theory of
liability. See for instance, Baker v. Werner, 654 P2d 263 (1982) and
Adamski v. Tacoma Gen. Hosp., 20 Wash App. 98,
501
“The principal is bound by the acts of his agent with the apparent
authority which he knowingly permits the agent to assume, or
which he holds the agent out to the public as possessing. The
question in every case is whether the principal has by his
voluntary act placed the agent in such a situation that a person of
ordinary prudence, conversant with business usages and the
nature of the particular business, is justified in presuming that
such agent
31
has authority to perform the particular act in
question.
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000162b535a6ecb1560f1d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 23/30
4/11/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 513
502
32
pital of Lake Worth, Inc. There, it was explicitly stated
that “there does not appear to be any rational basis for
excluding the concept of apparent authority from the field of
hospital liability.” Thus, in cases where it can be shown
that a hospital, by its actions, has held out a particular
physician as its agent and/or employee and that a patient
has accepted treatment from that physician in the
reasonable belief that it is being rendered in behalf of the
hospital, then the hospital will be liable for the physician’s
negligence.
Our jurisdiction recognizes the concept of an agency by
implication or estoppel. Article 1869 of the Civil Code
reads:
_______________
32 Supra.
503
_______________
504
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000162b535a6ecb1560f1d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 26/30
4/11/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 513
505
38
and policies that ensure quality care for its patients.
39
Thus, in Tucson Medical Center, Inc. v. Misevich, it was
held that a hospital, following the doctrine of corporate
responsibility, has the duty to see that it meets the
standards of responsibilities for the care of patients. Such
duty includes the proper supervision40of the members of its
medical staff. And in Bost v. Riley, the court concluded
that a patient who enters a hospital does so with the
reasonable expectation that it will attempt to cure him. The
hospital accordingly has the duty to make a reasonable
effort to monitor and oversee the treatment prescribed and
administered by the physicians practicing in its premises.
In the present case, it was duly established that PSI
operates the Medical City Hospital for the purpose and
under the concept of providing comprehensive medical
services to the public. Accordingly, it has the duty to
exercise reasonable care to protect from harm all patients
admitted into its facility for medical treatment.
Unfortunately, PSI failed to perform such duty. The
findings of the trial court are convincing, thus:
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000162b535a6ecb1560f1d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 27/30
4/11/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 513
506
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000162b535a6ecb1560f1d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 28/30
4/11/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 513
507
——o0o——
509
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000162b535a6ecb1560f1d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 30/30