Scribd
Upload
236 views2 pages

Hospital Liability in Medical Negligence

The Supreme Court ruled that while PSI was not vicariously liable for the negligence of Dr. Ampil due to insufficient evidence of an employer-employee relationship, PSI was directly liable for its own failure to follow proper standards of care as the owner and operator of the hospital. The Court maintained the lower court's ruling holding PSI liable for damages to the heirs of Natividad Agana for injuries suffered when doctors at PSI's hospital neglected to remove gauze used during surgery. However, the Court clarified that PSI could not be held vicariously liable for Dr. Ampil's negligence specifically due to a lack of evidence that PSI exercised control over the details of Dr. Ampil's

Uploaded by

Via Rhidda Imperial
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
236 views2 pages

Hospital Liability in Medical Negligence

The Supreme Court ruled that while PSI was not vicariously liable for the negligence of Dr. Ampil due to insufficient evidence of an employer-employee relationship, PSI was directly liable for its own failure to follow proper standards of care as the owner and operator of the hospital. The Court maintained the lower court's ruling holding PSI liable for damages to the heirs of Natividad Agana for injuries suffered when doctors at PSI's hospital neglected to remove gauze used during surgery. However, the Court clarified that PSI could not be held vicariously liable for Dr. Ampil's negligence specifically due to a lack of evidence that PSI exercised control over the details of Dr. Ampil's

Uploaded by

Via Rhidda Imperial
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

60. PSI v. Agana G.R. No.

126297, February 2, 2010 (Liability of hospitals:


vicarious and direct liabilities)
Ponente: Associate Justice Renato C. Corona
Petitioner: Professional Services, Inc. (GR No. 126297)
Natividad (substituted by her children Marcelino Agana III, Enrique Agana,Jr.,
Emma Agana-Andaya, Jesus Agana and Raymund Agana) and Enrique Agana
(G.R. No. 126467)
Miguel Ampil (G.R. No. 127590)
Respondent: CA and Natividad and Enrique Agana (GR No. 126297)
CA and Juan Fuentes (G.R. No. 126467)
Natividad and Enrique Agana (G.R. No. 127590)

FACTS:
Petitioner PSI filed a second motion for reconsideration for the modification of the
decision of the Court dated January 31, 2007 and resolution dated February 11, 2008
which affirmed its vicarious and direct liability for damages to respondents Enrique and
the heirs of Natividad Agana.
PSI, together with Dr. Miguel Ampil and DR. Juan Fuentes was impleaded by Enrique
Agana and Natividad Agana (later substituted by her heirs) in a complaint for damages
for the injuries suffered by Natividad when Dr. Ampil and Dr. Fuentes neglected to
remove from her body two gauzes which were used in the surgery they performed on her
at the Medical City General Hospital. PSI was impleaded as owner, operator and manager
of the hospital. RTC held PSI solidarily liable with Dr. Ampil and Dr. Fuentes for damages.
When the petitioner appealed, CA absolved Dr. Fuentes but affirmed the liability of Dr.
Ampil and PSI, subject to the right of PSI to claim reimbursement from Dr. Ampil.
ISSUE:
WON PSI is vicariously and directly liable for damages to respondents Enrique and the
heirs of Natividad Agana
RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court maintained the ruling that PSI is vicariously liable for the
negligence of Dr. Ampil as its ostensible agent. Where an employment relationship exists,
the hospital may be held vicariously liable under Article 2176 in relation to Article 2180
of the Civil Code or the principle of respondeat superior. Even when no employment
relationship exists but it is shown that the hospital holds out to the patient that the doctor
is its agent, the hospital may still be vicariously liable under Article 2176 in relation to
Article 1431 and Article 1869 of the Civil Code or the principle of apparent authority.
Moreover, regardless of its relationship with the doctor, the hospital may be held directly
liable to the patient for its own negligence or failure to follow established standard of
conduct to which it should conform as a corporation.
Nonetheless, to allay the anxiety of the intervenors, the Court holds that, in this particular
instance, the concurrent finding of the RTC and the CA that PSI was not the employer of
Dr. Ampil is correct. Control as a determinative factor in testing the employer-employee
relationship between doctor and hospital under which the hospital could be held
vicariously liable to a patient in medical negligence cases is a requisite fact to be
established by preponderance of evidence. Here, there was insufficient evidence that PSI
exercised the power of control or wielded such power over the means and the details of
the specific process by which Dr. Ampil applied his skills in the treatment of Natividad.
Consequently, PSI cannot be held vicariously liable for the negligence of Dr. Ampil under
the principle of respondeat superior.

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 III, Enrique Agana, Jr., Emma Agana-Andaya, Jesus
Agana and Raymund Agana) and Enrique Agana the total amount of ₱15 million, subject
to 12% p.a. interest from the finality of this resolution to full satisfaction.
No further pleadings by any party shall be entertained in this case.
Let the long-delayed entry of judgment be made in this case upon receipt by all
concerned parties of this resolution.
SO ORDERED.

You might also like