Professional Services, Inc_torts

8/3/2019 Professional Services, Inc_torts

1/12

PROFESSIONAL

SERVICES, INC.VS.AGANA

January 31, 2007February 11, 2008February 2, 2010


2/12

Facts PSI, together with Dr. Miguel Ampil (Dr. Ampil)and Dr. Juan Fuentes (Dr. Fuentes), wasimpleaded by Enrique Agana and NatividadAgana (later substituted by her heirs), in a

complaint for damages, for the injuriessuffered by Natividad when Dr. Ampil and Dr.Fuentes neglected to remove from her bodytwo gauzes which were used in the surgerythey performed at the Medical City GeneralHospital.

PSI was impleaded as owner, operator andmanager of the hospital.


3/12

Issue

Whether or not PSI, owner, operator andmanager of Medical City General Hospital,

liable for damages? YES.


4/12

RTC CA Jan 31 2007 February 11,

2008

February 2,

2010

Action A

complaint

for

damages

against PSI,

Dr. Ampil,Dr. Fuentes

Appeal to

the

decision of

RTC

Review on

Certiorari of

the

decision of

CA

Motion For

reconsiderati

on of a

decision in

SC

Second

Motion For

reconsiderati

on of a

decision in SC

Decision

In favor of Agana


5/12

Respondeat Superior Control Test

Hospitals exercise significant control in thehiring and firing of consultants and in theconduct of their work within the hospitalpremises.

In other words, private hospitals, hire, fire andexercise real control over their attending andvisiting consultant staff.

While consultants are not, technically

employees, x x x, the control exercised, thehiring, and the right to terminate consultantsall fulfill the important hallmarks of anemployer-employee relationship, with theexception of the payment of wages.


6/12

RTC CA Jan 31 2007 February 11,

2008

February 2,

2010

Respondeat

Superior

(existence of

employer-

employee

relationship)

Art. 2180 NCC

RTC and the CA found no

employment relationshipbetween PSI and Dr. Ampil

Defendant doctors were notemployees of PSI in its hospital,they being merely consultants

The Agana never questionedsuch finding.

Private hospitals, hire, fire andexercise real control over their

attending and visiting consultantstaff.

For the purpose of allocatingresponsibility in medical negligence

cases, an employer-employeerelationship in effect exists

PSI merely offered a general denialof responsibility, maintaining that

consultants, like Dr. Ampil, are"independent contractors," not

employees of the hospital.

Even assuming that Dr. Ampil is notan employee of Medical City, but anindependent contractor, still the said

hospital is liable to the Aganas.

Made reference to RTC and CAfindings. Here, there was insufficientevidence that PSI exercised the

power of control

PSI cannot be held vicariously liable

for the negligence of Dr. Ampil underthe principle of respondeat superior.

Whatever discussion on the matterthat may have ensued was purely

academic.


7/12

Ostensible Agency It imposes liability, not as the result of the reality

of a contractual relationship, but ratherbecause

of the actions of a principal or an employer in

somehow misleading the public into believing

that the relationship or the authority exists. in cases where it can be shown that

1. a hospital, by its actions, has held out a particularphysician as its agent and/or employee and

2. that a patient has accepted treatment from that

physician in the reasonable belief that it is beingrendered in behalf of the hospital,

3. then the hospital will be liablefor the physiciansnegligence.


8/12

Jan 31 2007 February 11, 2008 February 2,

2010

Apparent

Authority

Ostensible

Agency

Agency by

Estoppel

Holding Out

theory

Article 1869 NCC

PSI argues that the doctrine of

apparent authority cannot apply tobecause Agana failed to establishproof of their reliance.

The argument lacks merit.

Atty. Agana categorically testifiedthat one of the reasons why hechose Dr. Ampil was that he knewhim to be a staff member of MedicalCity, a prominent and knownhospital.

Test:

whether the principal has by hisvoluntary act placed the agent insuch a situation that a person ofordinary prudence, conversant withbusiness usages and the nature ofthe particular business, is justified inpresuming that such agent hasauthority to perform the particularact in question.

In these cases, the circumstances

yield a positive answer to thequestion.

Applicable.

We concur with the Court ofAppeals conclusion that it "is nowestopped from passing all the blameto the physicians.

By accrediting Dr. Ampil and Dr.Fuentes and publicly advertising theirqualifications, the hospital createdthe impression that they were itsagents, authorized to performmedical or surgical services for its

patients.

Even when no employmentrelationship exists but it is shown thatthe hospital holds out to the patientthat the doctor is its agent, thehospital may still be vicariously liableunder Article 2176 in relation to

Article 1431 and Article 1869

There is, however, ample evidencethat the hospital (PSI) held out to thepatient (Natividad) that the doctor(Dr. Ampil) was its agent.

Present are the two factors thatdetermine apparent authority:1. the hospital's implied

manifestation to the patientwhich led the latter to conclude

that the doctor was the hospital'sagent;2. the patients reliance upon the

conduct of the hospital and thedoctor, consistent with ordinarycare and prudence.


9/12

Doctrine of Corporate

Negligence

As the judicial answer to the problem ofallocating hospitals liability for the

negligent acts of health practitioners,absent facts to support the application ofrespondeat superior or apparentauthority.


10/12

Jan 31 2007 February 11, 2008 February 2,

2010

Doctrine of

Corporate

Negligence

or Corporate

Responsibilit

yApplicable.

PSI operates the Medical CityHospital for the purpose and underthe concept of providing

comprehensive medical services

Accordingly, it has the duty toexercise reasonable care to protectfrom harm all patients admitted intoits facility for medical treatment.

Unfortunately, PSI failed to perform such

duty.

Failure of PSI, despite the attending

nurses report, to investigate and inform

Natividad

PSI, as the operator of the hospital, has

actual or constructive knowledge of the

procedures carried out

Not only did PSI breach its duties to

oversee or supervise all persons who

practice medicine within its walls, it also

failed to take an active step in fixing the

negligence committed

The duty of providing quality medicalservice is no longer the sole

prerogative and responsibility of thephysician.

Dr. Jocson, a member of PSIsmedical staff, who testified onwhether the hospital conducted an

investigation, was evasive.

Dr. Jocson showed lack of concernfor the patients. Such conduct isreflective of the hospitals manner ofsupervision.

PSI excuses itself from fulfilling its

corporate duty on the ground thatDr. Ampil assumed the personalresponsibility of informing Natividadabout the two missing gauzes

While Dr. Ampil may have had the

primary responsibility of notifyingNatividad about the missing gauzes,PSI imposed upon itself the separateand independent responsibility ofinitiating the inquiry into the missinggauzes.

That Dr. Ampil negligently failed tonotify Natividad did not release PSIfrom its self-imposed separateresponsibility.

It should be borne in mind that thecorporate negligence ascribed to PSIis different from the medicalnegligence attributed to Dr. Ampil


11/12

RTC CA Jan 312007

February 11,2008

February 2,2010

Liability PSI

solidarily

liable

with Dr.

Ampil

and Dr.

Fuentes

for

damages

absolved Dr.

Fuentes but

affirmed the

liability of Dr.

Ampil and

PSI, subject

to the right

of PSI to

claim

reimbursem

ent from Dr.

Ampil

affirmed

the CA

decision

Court

premised the

direct liability

of PSI to the

Aganas.

Direct

Liability of 15

million

subject to

12% interest


12/12

Note: in 2010 decision

PSIs hospital liability based on ostensible agency

and corporate negligence applies only to this

case, pro hac vice.

It is not intended to set a precedent and should

not serve as a basis to hold hospitals liable for

every form of negligence of their doctors-

consultants under any and all circumstances.

Professional Services, Inc_torts

Documents