LIABILITY OF PSI

On January 31, 2007, The Court rendered the decision holding that PSI is liable for the negligence of Dr. Ampil

ARTICLE 2176

• Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.

IS PSI LIABLE FOR THE NEGLIGENCE OF DR. AMPIL?

RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR

• Latin: "let the master answer” • a legal doctrine which states that, in

many circumstances, an employer is responsible for the actions of employees performed within the course of their employment

ARTICLE 2180

• The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one’s own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.

Employer-Employee Relationship

• The Court relied on Ramos v. Court of Appeals, holding that for the purpose of apportioning responsibility in medical negligence cases, an employer-employee relationship in effect exists between hospitals and their attending and visiting physicians

Employer-Employee Relationship

• private hospitals, hire, fire and exercise real control over their attending and visiting ‘consultant’ staff.

• While ‘consultants’ are not, technically employees, the control exercised, the hiring, and the right to terminate consultants all fulfill the important hallmarks of an employer-employee relationship, with the exception of the payment of wages.

IS PSI LIABLE FOR THE NEGLIGENCE OF DR. AMPIL?

• PSI’s act of publicly displaying in the lobby of the Medical City the names and specializations of its accredited physicians, including Dr. Ampil, estopped it from denying the existence of an employer-employee relationship between them under the doctrine of ostensible agency or agency by estoppel

IS PSI LIABLE FOR THE NEGLIGENCE OF DR. AMPIL?

• PSI’s failure to supervise Dr. Ampil and its resident physicians and nurses and to take an active step in order to remedy their negligence rendered it directly liable under the doctrine of corporate negligence.