G.

RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF PHYSICIANS AND PATIENTS

H. PHYSICIAN – PATIENT CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP
I. DOCTRINES
1. Doctrine of Vicarious Liability / Imputed Negligence / Doctrine of Respondeat
Superior
2. Doctrine of Contributory Negligence or Doctrine of Common Fault
3. Doctrine of Ostensible Agent or

Doctrine of Apparent Authority

Doctrine of apparent authority. [T]he doctrine [under which] acts and contracts of the agent, as are within the
apparent scope of the authority conferred on him, although no actual authority to do such acts or to make such
contracts has been conferred, bind the principal. The principal’s liability, however, is limited only to 3rd persons
who have been led reasonably to believe by the conduct of the principal that such actual authority exists, although
none was given. In other words, apparent authority is determined only by the acts of the principal and not by the acts
of the agent.[Banate v. Phil. Countryside Rural Bank, Inc., GR 163825, July 13, 2010].Also called the Holding out
theory; or Doctrine of ostensible agency or Agency by estoppel. See Apparent authority doctrine.

4. Borrowed Servant Doctrine

Ordinarily, resident physicians, nurses and other personnel of the hospital are employees or servants of the hospital.
In some instances, they are under the temporary supervision and control of another other than
their employer while performing their duties. By fiction of law, they are deemed borrowed from the hospital by
someone and for any wrongful act committed by them during the period,
their temporary employer must be held liable for the discharge of their acts and duties. In the determination whether
one is a borrowed servant, it is necessary that he is not only subjected to the control of another with regard to the
work done and the manner of performing it but also that the work to be done is for the benefit of the temporary
employer. The common law principle that the employer of a borrowed employee, rather than the employee's
regular employer, is liable for the employee's actions that occur while the employee is under the control of the
temporary employer.

5. Captain of the Ship Doctrine

Under the “Captain of the Ship” rule, the operating surgeon is the person in complete charge of the surgery room
and all personnel connected with the operation. Their duty is to obey his orders. (Rural Educational Assn. v. Bush,
42 Tenn. App. 34, 298 S.W. 2d 761 (1956)). As stated before, Dr. Ampil was the lead surgeon. In other words, he
was the “Captain of the Ship”.

6. Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur or Doctrine of Common Knowledge

The thing itself speaks. A doctrine of law that one is presumed to be negligent if he had exclusive control of
whatever caused the injury even though there is no specific evidence of an act of negligence, and without negligence
the accident would not have happened.

7. Doctrine of Assumption of Risk

The precept that denotes that a person who knows and comprehends the peril and voluntarily exposes himself or
herself to it, although not negligent in doing so, is regarded as engaging in an assumption of the risk and is precluded
from a recovery for an injury ensuing therefrom. Also called Doctrine of volenti non fit injuria.

8. Doctrine of Last Clear Chance

Also known as the Doctrine of discovered peril or the Humanitarian doctrine. A doctrine in the law of torts which
states that the contributory negligence of the party injured will not defeat the claim for damages if it is shown that
the defendant might, by the exercise of reasonable care and prudence, have avoided the consequences of the
negligence of the injured party. In such cases, the person who had the last clear chance to avoid the mishap is
considered in law solely responsible for the consequences thereof. [Ong v. Metropolitan Water District, 104 Phil.
405 (1958)]. See Last clear chance doctrine.

Doctrine of Discovered Peril

The doctrine [holding] that where both parties are negligent, but the negligent act of one is appreciably later in time
than that of the other, or when it is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence should be attributed to the
incident, the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the impending harm and failed to do so is chargeable
with the consequences thereof.

Doctrine of Supervening Negligence

Also Doctrine of discovered peril. The doctrine x x x to the effect that where both parties are negligent, but the
negligent act of one is appreciably later in time than that of the other, or when it is impossible to determine whose
fault or negligence should be attributed to the incident, the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the
impending harm and failed to do so is chargeable with the consequences thereof. [Picart v. Smith, 37 Phil. 809].
[A]n antecedent negligence of a person does not preclude the recovery of damages for supervening negligence of, or
bar a defense against the liability sought by, another if the latter, who had the last fair chance, could have avoided
the impending harm by the exercise of due diligence. [Pantranco North Express, Inc. v. Baesa, 179 SCRA 384].

9. Doctrine of Foreseeability

• A physician cannot be held accountable for negligence if the injury sustained by the patient is on account of
unforeseen conditions but if a physician fails to ascertain the condition of the patient for want of the
requisite skill and training is answerable for the injury sustained by the patient if injury resulted thereto.
• - A physician owes duty of care to all persons who are foreseeably endangered by his conduct, with respect
to the risk which make the conduct unreasonably dangerous.