Case Digest (G.R. No. 126297)
Facts:
Professional Services, Inc. v. Court of Appeals and Natividad and Enrique Agana, G.R. Nos. 126297, 126467 and 127590, February 02, 2010, Supreme Court En Banc, Corona, J., writing for the Court.The underlying tort suit arose from surgery performed on Natividad Agana on April 11, 1984 at Medical City General Hospital, owned and operated by Professional Services, Inc. (PSI), wherein two gauzes were left in her body. Enrique Agana and Natividad (later substituted by her heirs) sued PSI, Dr. Miguel Ampil and Dr. Juan Fuentes in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Quezon City, Branch 96 (Civil Case No. Q-43322), alleging negligence and seeking damages for the injuries suffered by Natividad.
In a decision dated March 17, 1993, the RTC found PSI solidarily liable with the doctors. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) in a September 6, 1996 decision absolved Dr. Fuentes but affirmed liability against Dr. Ampil and PSI, allowing PSI a right to reimbursement from Dr. Ampil. The parties sought further review; the Supreme Court First Division rendered a decision on January 31, 2007 affirming the CA, and denied PSI’s motion for reconsideration in a February 11, 2008 resolution.
PSI filed a second motion for reconsideration and sought referral to the Court en banc. The Private Hospital Association and two hospitals—Manila Medical Services, Inc. (MMSI) and Asian Hospital, Inc. (AHI)—moved to intervene, arguing the Court’s earlier formulation of hospital liability would imperil private hospitals. The Court’s Special First Division granted intervention and referred PSI’s second motion en consulta to the Court en banc. Given the public interest, the Court en banc accepted referral, limited oral arguments to whether a hospital may be held liable for negligence of physicians-consultants practicing in its premises, and considered PSI’s claim that it was neither employer nor liable for Dr. Ampil’s acts.
The Court re-examined the factual record: the RTC and CA had found no employer-employee relationship between PSI and Dr. Ampil; Enrique’s testimony showed he chose Dr. Ampil because the doctor was a staff member of Medical City; PSI required a pre-operative “consent for hospital care” form that referred to “physicians of this hospital”; and PSI’s own filings contained a judicial admission that, although it did not control the doctor’s methods, it had an obligation to review and act on irregularities such as...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether the RTC’s finding that there was no employer-employee relationship between PSI and Dr. Ampil became final and conclusive such that PSI cannot be held vicariously liable under respondeat superior.
- Whether PSI can be held vicariously liable for the negligence of Dr. Ampil on the theory of ostensible agency/apparent authority.
- Whether PSI is directly liable under the doctrine of corporate negligence for failing to investigate a...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)