Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
versus -
the two failed to observe the required standard of care expected from
doctors. From the testimonies of the witnesses presented, it was irrefutably
proven that Drs See and Dy failed to practice that degree of skill and care
required in the treatment of his patient. The records revealed a want of
reasonable skill and care in attending to the needs of the victim.
Furthermore, the doctrine of Captain-of-the-Ship finds application due to
the factual circumstances obtaining in this case. From the facts on record it
can be logically inferred that Dr. See exercised a certain degree of, at the
very least, supervision over the procedure then being performed on Mrs. Bee.
First, it was Dr. See who recommended to complainants the services of
Dr. Dy. In effect, he represented to complainants that Dr. Dy possessed the
necessary competence and skills.
Second, although Dr. See did not admit to have done the primary
operation himself, he admitted that he took over the operation to ensure that
the procedure was in accordance with proper medical practice.
Third, it is conceded that in performing their responsibilities to the
patient, Drs. See and Dy worked as a team. They were certainly not
completely independent of each other so as to absolve one from the
negligent acts of the other physician.
That they were working as a medical team is evident from the fact that
Dr. See had to oversee the operation conducted by Dr. Dy to ensure its
proper execution. He in fact told Dr. Dy to rest while he would check on the
operation.
It is equally important to point out that Dr. See was remiss in his duty
when, despite the fact that the nurse informed her that 2 gauze pads were
still missing and probably lodge in the incised area, he proceeded to close
the incision.
As the attending surgeons, they should be primarily responsible in
ensuring that the standards required of the procedure is properly observed
althroughout the operation. Both doctors have a duty to use at least the
same level of care that any other reasonably competent doctor would use
under the same circumstances. Sadly, Dr. See and Dy did not display that
degree of care and precaution demanded by the circumstances.
As to the second issue of whether or not XYZ Hospital is liable for
the acts of the doctors:
The basis for holding an employer solidarily responsible for the
negligence of its employee is found in Article 2180 of the Civil Code which
considers a person accountable not only for his own acts but also for those of
others based on the former's responsibility under a relationship of patria
potestas. However, the existence of an employee-employer relationship must
first be proven.
It has been consistently held that in determining whether an employeremployee relationship exists between the parties, the following elements
must be present: (1) selection and engagement of services; (2) payment of
wages; (3) the power to hire and fire; and (4) the power to control not only
the end to be achieved, but the means to be used in reaching such an end.
XYZ Hospital admits that first, Dr. See is only a visiting consultant despite
the fact that his name is on the directory of doctors and that he is only
granted the privilege of maintaining a clinic and/or admitting patients in the
hospital.
Second, it is the hospital that pays his fees on the basis of the extent of
his consultations.
Lastly, XYZ Hospital argues that when a doctor refers a patient for
admission in a hospital, it is the doctor who prescribes the treatment to be
given to said patient while the hospitals only obligation is limited to
providing the patient with the preferred room accommodation and
medications prescribed by the doctor, the equipment and facilities necessary
for the treatment of the patient, as well as the services of the hospital staff
who perform the ministerial tasks of ensuring that the doctors orders are
carried out strictly.
After a careful consideration, this Court finds that not all the elements are
present to establish an employee-employer relationship between XYZ
Hospital and Dr. See.
However, with respect to Dr. Dy, XYZ Hospital admitted through its
president that Dr. Dy was a regular member of the medical staff. The
respondent hospital, apart from a general denial of its responsibility over Dr.
Dy, failed to adduce evidence showing that it exercised the diligence of a
good father of a family in the supervision of the latter to prevent damage.
The respondent hospital thereby failed to discharge its burden under the
last paragraph of Article 2180. Having failed to do this, respondent hospital is
consequently solidarily responsible for the acts of Dr. Dy.
Based on the foregoing, we hold that XYZ Hospital were unable to rebut
the presumption of negligence and are solidarily liable for damages under
Article 2176 79 of the Civil Code.
Amount of Damages
As to the amount of damages due to the petitioners it is a well settled
rule that actual damages which may be claimed by the plaintiff are those
suffered by him as he has duly proved. The Civil Code provides:
Art. 2199. Except as provided by law or by stipulation, one is entitled
to an adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him
as he has duly proved. Such compensation is referred to as actual or
compensatory damages.