LEGAL MEDICINE

-is the branch of medicine that applies medical and surgical concepts, scientific
knowledge, and skills to medico legal issues, in order to assist the trier of facts in the proper
dispensation of justice.

- a branch of medicine which deals with the application of medical knowledge to the purposes
of law and in the administration of justice.

Medical Jurisprudence-is the study of the Medical Law and its applicable Jurisprudence that governs,
regulates and defines the practice of medicine.

-It includes the rights, duties, obligations and liabilities of both physician and patient to each other in a
physician patient professional contract.

Forensic science is the scientific method of gathering and examining information about
the past. This is especially important in law enforcement where forensics is done in
relation to criminal or civil law,[1] but forensics are also carried out in other fields, such as
astronomy, archaeology, biology and geology to investigate ancient times!

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE general term used when a medical practitioner (Doctor)

or an allied medical practitioner (Dentist, Nurse, Medical Technologist) KNOWINGLY
DEVIATES from the standard practice of medicine

MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE specific term used when a medical practioner does not
exercise due diligence and standard care required of him thus resulting to injury to the
patient. Usually connotes accidental or unintentional injury.

!
Elements of Medical Negligence:
!

There is a duty to give care to patients (physicians)

There was damage/injury caused to the patient
There is a breach of duty on the part of the physician
The breach of duty is the proximate cause of the injury caused to the patient

!
!

RES IPSA LOQUITUR

-

Literally means: the thing speaks for itself.

Originated in the English Jurisprudence of Byrne V. Boadle (1853 Case)

If one eventuality happens unusually or not occasionally, NEGLIGENCE is presumed if one

has control over things.

Its function is to aid the plaintiff in proving the elements of negligence by circumstancial
evidence.

The doctrine can only be invoked when and only when, under the circumstances, involved,
direct evidence is absent and not readily available.

Doctrine of Common Fault.

It is the conduct on the part of the plaintiff, contributing as a legal cause to the harm he
has suffered, which falls below the standard to which he is required to conform for his
own protection.

Article 2179, Civil Code:

When the plaintiffs own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he
cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was only contributory, the immediate and
proximate cause of the injury being the defendants lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover
damages, but the court shall mitigate the damages to be awarded.

!
CAPTAIN OF THE SHIP RULE
!

Proximate Cause- That cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken
by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the
result would not have occurred.
a legal concept of "cause-and-effect" relationships

determines whether an injury would have resulted from a particular cause.

!
BORROWED SERVANT RULE

!
CORPORATE NEGLIGENCE

A hospital has the duty to see that it meets the standards of responsibilities for the care
of patients. Such duty includes the proper supervison of the members of its medical
staff.

If a hospital breached its duties to oversee or supervise all persons practicing medicine
within its walls and also failed to take an active step in fixing the negligence committed,
it will be vicariously liable for the negligence of the doctor under Art. 2180, and directly
liable for its own negligence under Art. 2176.

!
!
!

(Professional Services, Inc. v Agana, G.R. No. 126297, January 31, 2006)

!
MEDICAL DOCUMENTATION!
IS INFORMED CONSENT WAIVER IN CASE OF DEATH?
!

EXTENT OF CARE- Standard of care required is more than just ordinary care and
diligence but a HIGHER degree of care expected from an average physician or general
practitioner.

Source: Solis MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE 1988

!
WHAT ARE THE POSSIBLE INDICATIONS FOR ALLOWING AUTOPSY? IF YOU ARE
THE OPPOSING LAWYER, WHAT WOULD BE YOUR OBJECTIONS?

!
!
This is a case on asking Bill of Particulars; but the main point in whether or not the liquidation must come
first before the taking of profits/shares (Chavez v Linan)
upon the dissolution of the 1st partnership, they admitted one more person in the partnership as industrial
partner. Afterwards, the original partners bought the shares of the industrial partner. The other orig partner
has abandoned the partnership; the issue is whether or not there is a civil or recorded partnership. (Rojas
V. Maglana)
The case provides that before a party could ask for his profits/shares after the partnership has been found
fraudulently managed could only operate if there is prior liquidation of the same. (Soncuya v Deluna)
The court has declared the partnership to be an illegal one; they asseverate that the law provides that the
profits shall be confiscated in favor of the State for the benefit of Charitable inst.- which was not impleaded.
The respondents ask that their contributions be refunded (Arbes v Polistico)

Sisters have entered into a contract whereby they have intrusted in the name of another person the
title of their property for subdivision purposes; the latter was industrial partner; there was no
public document as to the immovable property contributed (Torres v CA)
Plaintiff herein asserts that he has the right to the profits earned by the deceased Elser for his property was
used in the development of the San Juan Estate when he was abroad. He believes that as a former partner
in estate business by Elser, the property they owned was used to supplicate the needed amount for the
development of the subdivision although he knew that he declined the offer of Elser (Layons v Rosentock)
In this case, the plaintiff has occupied double standpoints- one in the concept of a lessee and on the other
on the concept of buyer of the land where the distillery is located. (Pang lim v Loseng)
Siblings have inherited from their father parcels of land. Their original plan was to build their houses
thereon but because of high cost of construction, they decided to sell the same and divide the profits
among themselves. CIR assessed income tax and said there was partnership (Obilos v CIR)
Upon the foreclosure of the property mortgaged by the partners, one of them seeks to repurchase the
same but now wishes to have it titled only to his own name and not under the partnership (Catalan v
Gatchalian)
There was no articles of partnership in writing; the party herein was ousted as marketing manager without
any reason whatsoever- she demanded for her shares in the partnership. She was denied of the same by
the plaintiff because there was no partnership according to her (Tocao v CA)
The parties in the herein case entered into a partnership for the operation and management of a fish pond;
the respondent after being granted by the State to operate the same, had another contract with the plaintiff.
subsequently, the latter was ousted. (De luao v Casteel)
The plaintiff herein claims that the partnership shall reimburse him of the amount that he has spent
additionally for the materials needed to finish the cascoes that he was commissioned to do because hadnt
been his buying the materials, they same would not have been finished. (Agustin v Inocencio)

The parties in the herein case dispute that since there was an immovable property to be contributed, it has
to be in a public instrument- esp. in operating fish pond business. (Agad v Mabato)
The parties herein have agreed to buy a parcel of land for 44 pesos; the defendant did not give his share
while continuing to occupy the land. (Galemet v Tabiliran)
Plaintiff entered into a contract of selling mining claims to the manager of another company. the latter
delayed in payment so the plaintiff sued the manager and the company; the latter insists that it should not
be held liable because the contract is good only as between the contracting parties and did not bind the
partnership (Litton v Gil & Ceron)
the plaintiff herein asserts his claim to the profits realised after the rehabilitation of a certain mining area.
He was supposed to raise a certain amount of money but he failed to do so; then his other supposed
partners have joined their contributions to provide the rehabilitation without the contribution of plaintiff
(Hanlon v Hausserman)
The only contribution of the party is the credit of money from his brother; he asserts that he should not be
liable to the producer of fishing nets because he is not a partner but a lessor (Lim v Phil Fishing Gear)
The plaintiff has imp leaded several person as liable to him for the 4k that Lo Chim Lim owes him for the
unsuccessful lumber yard business; he asserts that the respondents are liable as well to him for the
payment of the debt because they are working together with Lim (Bourns v Carman)
the plaintiff asks for the continuance of the usage of the law firm name providing as legal basis the
commercial code which provides that the continued use of a partnership name even with the name of a
deceased partner is amenable; there was also an asseveration of the applicability of US jurisprudence in
such that law firms are allowed to continue the same even in the presence of the name of a deceased
partner provided that there is a local custom which allows its use and renders it not unethical (Petition for
the continued use of the firm name SYCIP etc)
In this case, the plaintiff claims that the defendant shall be liable soldiery with the partnership debt since
the other co-partner has already went to the US. (Co-pitco v Yulo)
In the herein case, there was a contention of the assignee/brother that he is entitled to shares in the fish
pond because of the partnershipp (Berniza v Dequilla)
this case delves in the concept of delectus personae in which a partner should have the power, not actually
the right, to ask for the dissolution of the partnership, if he believes that the relationship of the partners are
not anymore conducive to a peaceful social environment. The plaintiff herein wrote a letter to his copartners to dissolve the partnership because of the treatment of the same to the lawyers of the firm (Ortega
v CA)
The case talks about validity of the sale of supposedly foreclosed properties to the plaintiff. As the
judgment debtor, the property of the company is supposed to have been foreclosed but on the day of the
same, it has sold the trucks to some other persons. (Mcdonlad v Nat City Bank)
The plaintiff herein asks for the rescission of the contract of partnership because the other partner did not
contribute his promised amount. (Sancho v Lizaraga)
In this case, the plaintiff was an original partner of a dissolved partnership. Upon the continuation of the
2nd partnership under the same name, the plaintiff asked for his share in the 1st one; to his surprise it was
not that he expected. He asserted his claim but he was appeased by the other partners. Upon the
dissolution of the 2nd partnership, as an industrial partner, he was tasked to perform the dissolution. He
was asking for his share and the payment for such additional work. The partners insisted that he is barred
by prescription. (Criado v Guttierez Hermano)
Corporations could not enter in a partnership with another corporation except in cases where the articles of
incorporation permits it to and provided that it is in line with the business; partnership may enter into a of
contract partnership with another partnership. (JM Tuazon and Co v Bolanos)
In this case, the defendant appeals that he should not be liable to the partnership credit due the plaintiff
because he is an industrial partner- he is not liable for the losses. (Compania Maritima v Munoz)

This case delves on the denial of the SC that a partner could be held liable of estafa because the mere fact
that one person has contributed money to the common fund of the property, it has been believed that the
partners are not supposed to deliver back the same to the contributor partner. (US V. Clarin)
The plaintiff herein says that the defendant is barred by prescription (22 years) by not asking for his profits
in the panciteria business (Fue Leung v IAC)
The President Jose Gatchalian and others have bought a 2 peso sweepstakes ticket which eventually won
50k. They were assessed of income tax by the CIR for the partnership profits; Gatchalian denies the
existence of partnership (Gatchalian v CIR)
This is a case whereby the parties have agreed to contribute money and provide from printout for the
constitutional commission. Defendant did not give his promised amount and have used only the
contribution of the plaintiff to produce the materials. (Moran v CA)
The defendants in this case assert that since the partnership is originally composed of 5 members, the
withdrawal of one of them by the plaintiff in the case shall not operate to have the partnership debt of the
same burdened upon the other defendants because their liability is one pro rata. (Island Sales V. United
Pioneers)
The partners herein undertook to remodel a building of a company. The expenses were paid in check by
the company under the name of one of the partners. Subsequently, the collecting partner has misapplied
the same- the left out plaintiff is now burdened on solidarily paying the partnership debt. (Munasque v CA)
The plaintiff, a common law spouse, asks for the share of his husband in the dissolved partnership (Lintad
Houver v Ramolete)
In this case the SC provided that there is a need to imp lead all partnership members parties before the
dissolution and liquidation of the partnership could be effected. (Magdusa V. Alabaran)
This case talks about the partnership which has been assailed because the property therein allegedly had
been taken by the managing partner to the prejudice of his common law spouse; the point here is whether
or not after the dissolution of the property, may the plaintiffs ask for receivership of the partnership
properties (Sy v CA)
The partner was a syndicate whereby they bought certain shares of stocks of meralco; Judge has asked
for their withdrawal because he and the others believed that there is no profitable gain of the same planthey received their share in the contribution right there and then; afterwards the business grew, now the
Judge asks for his share. (Bonevie v Hernandez)
This case has been decided in accordance with Compania Maritima whereby the party assails that he is
not supposed to be liable because he is an industrial partner (Pac. Comm. V. Aboitiz)
The plaintiff claims that she has a right for the profits derived from the operation of the theatre on a land
which she leased from the Santa Marinas. Defendant refused to give the same as per advice of his
counsel because of a pending ejectment case against them; plaintiff has no voice in the management and
has not contributed the amount of money she promised to contribute. (Yulo v Seng)
In this case, it was contended that the partnership could not be dissolved not unless there was 2/3 of the
votes of the partners- which is impracticable in this case because the partnership is already bankrupt.
(Lichauco v Lichauco)
the partners claim that not just because they were married, their income taxes prior and after the marriage
concurrently with their managing of the partnership shall be a cause for the consolidation of their taxes.
(CIR v Suter)
Herein plaintiff asks for 5% profit shares from the partnership saying that he is a partner in the business.
the defendants decline saying that he is a mere employee and that he is not entitled to any profit share at
all (Fortiz v Guttierez Hermanos)

Herein plaintiff asks for 5% profit shares from the partnership saying that he is a partner in the business.
the defendants decline saying that he is a mere employee and that he is not entitled to any profit share at
all (Fortiz v Guttierez Hermanos)
The case delves on the partnership which has been dissolved but the same did not operate the winding up
and such dissolution was not publicized. The plaintiff was still held laible for the partnership debts.
(Singson v Isabela Sawmill )
IN this case, the plaintiff assails the validity of the sale of the subject lots by the widow of the then
managing partner of the business. He asserts that she is only a limited partner and did not succeed his
deceased husband as the manager of the partnership (Guiquolay v Sycip)
the plaintiff says that he was illegally terminated and that he is supposed to be paid of his salary;
furthermore, there is contention as regards the partnership debtors of the past partnership shall be carried
over to the new partnership. (Yu v NLRC)