Title
Professional Services, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 126297
Decision Date
Feb 2, 2010
A hospital was held liable for a surgeon's negligence due to ostensible agency and corporate negligence after gauzes were left in a patient post-surgery.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 126297)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and Procedural Posture
  • Professional Services, Inc. (PSI) – owner/operator of Medical City General Hospital; impleaded as defendant.
  • Enrique Agana and Natividad Agana (later substituted by her heirs) – plaintiffs alleging damages from retained gauzes after surgery.
  • Dr. Miguel Ampil and Dr. Juan Fuentes – consultants who performed the surgery.
  • Manila Medical Services, Inc. (MMSI), Asian Hospital, Inc. (AHI), and Private Hospital Association of the Philippines (PHAP) – intervenors arguing the decision’s effect on private hospitals.
  • Procedural History
    • RTC (Quezon City, Branch 96) decision on March 17, 1993 – held PSI and Dr. Ampil solidarily liable; Dr. Fuentes also held liable.
    • CA decision on September 6, 1996 – absolved Dr. Fuentes; affirmed PSI and Dr. Ampil’s liability (subject to PSI’s right to reimburse Dr. Ampil).
    • SC decision on January 31, 2007 (513 SCRA 478) – affirmed CA; resolution on February 11, 2008 (544 SCRA 170) denied reconsideration.
    • PSI filed its second motion for reconsideration; MMSI, AHI, PHAP moved to intervene; matter referred to SC En Banc; oral arguments held March 4, 2009.
  • Incident and Core Allegations
  • On April 11, 1984, Drs. Ampil and Fuentes performed surgery on Natividad Agana at Medical City; two gauzes were inadvertently left in her body.
  • Plaintiffs alleged that PSI, as hospital operator, was vicariously and directly liable for the doctors’ negligence.
  • PSI denied an employment relationship with Dr. Ampil, denying control over consultants, and contested corporate negligence.

Issues:

  • Whether an employer-employee relationship existed between PSI and Dr. Ampil under the “control test.”
  • Whether PSI is vicariously liable under ostensible agency for Dr. Ampil’s negligence.
  • Whether PSI is directly liable under the doctrine of corporate negligence for failing to investigate and address the missing gauzes.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.