Scribd
Upload
32 views2 pages

FACTS

Uploaded by

Cal De Andrade
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
32 views2 pages

FACTS

Uploaded by

Cal De Andrade
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

FACTS:

 Enrique Agana told his wife Natividad Agana to go look for their neighbor, Dr. Ampil, a surgeon
staff member of Medical City, a prominent and known hospital

 Natividad suffered from injury due to 2 gauzes left inside her body so they sued Professional Inc.
(PSI)

 Despite, the report of 2 missing gauzes after the operation PSI did NOT initiate an investigation

ISSUE:

 W/N There is failure to prove employer-employee relationship between PSI and Dr. Ampil?

 W/N Respondents Aganas engaged Dr. Miguel Ampil as their doctor and did not primarily and
specifically look to the Medical City Hospital (PSI) for medical care and support

 W/N PSI cannot be liable under doctrine of corporate negligence since the proximate cause of
Mrs. Agana's injury was the negligence of Dr. Ampil, which is an element of the principle of
corporate negligence.

HELD:

1. NO.
As priorly stated, private respondents maintained specific work-schedules, as determined by
petitioner through its medical director, which consisted of 24-hour shifts totaling forty-eight
hours each week and which were strictly to be observed under pain of administrative sanctions.

The petitioner exercised control over respondents gains light from the undisputed fact that in
the emergency room, the operating room, or any department or ward for that matter,
respondents' work is monitored through its nursing supervisors, charge nurses and orderlies.
Without the approval or consent of petitioner or its medical director, no operations can be
undertaken in those areas. For control test to apply, it is not essential for the employer to
actually supervise the performance of duties of the employee, it being enough that it has the
right to wield the power.

2. NO.

Enrique testified that on April 2, 1984, he consulted Dr. Ampil regarding the condition of his wife;
that after the meeting and as advised by Dr. Ampil, he "asked [his] wife to go to Medical City to
be examined by [Dr. Ampil]"; and that the next day, April 3, he told his daughter to take her
mother to Dr. Ampil.50 This timeline indicates that it was Enrique who actually made the decision
on whom Natividad should consult and where, and that the latter merely acceded to it. It
explains the testimony of Natividad that she consulted Dr. Ampil at the instigation of her
daughter.

3. NO.

PSI reiterated its admission when it stated that had Natividad Agana "informed the hospital of
her discomfort and pain, the hospital would have been obliged to act on it."

The significance of the foregoing statements is critical.

First, they constitute judicial admission by PSI that while it had no power to control the means or
method by which Dr. Ampil conducted the surgery on Natividad Agana, it had the power to
review or cause the review of what may have irregularly transpired within its walls strictly for the
purpose of determining whether some form of negligence may have attended any procedure
done inside its premises, with the ultimate end of protecting its patients.

Second, it is a judicial admission that, by virtue of the nature of its business as well as its
prominence57 in the hospital industry, it assumed a duty to "tread on" the "captain of the ship"
role of any doctor rendering services within its premises for the purpose of ensuring the safety
of the patients availing themselves of its services and facilities.

Third, by such admission, PSI defined the standards of its corporate conduct under the
circumstances of this case, specifically: (a) that it had a corporate duty to Natividad even after
her operation to ensure her safety as a patient; (b) that its corporate duty was not limited to
having its nursing staff note or record the two missing gauzes and (c) that its corporate duty
extended to determining Dr. Ampil's role in it, bringing the matter to his attention, and
correcting his negligence.

The corporate negligence doctrine imposes several duties on a hospital: (1) to use reasonable
care in the maintenance of safe and adequate facilities and equipment; (2) to select and retain
only competent physicians; (3) to oversee as to patient care all persons who practice medicine
within its walls; and (4) to formulate, adopt, and enforce adequate rules and policies to ensure
quality care for its patients.

You might also like