ROGELIO RAMOS ET,AL VS. COURT OF APPEALS, ET.

AL FACTS Erlinda Ramos, a 47-year old robust woman, was experiencing occasional pain due to the presence of stone in her gall bladder. She was advised to undergo an operation for its removal. She and her husband Rogelio met Dr. Hosaka, one of the defendants, who advised that she should undergo cholecystectomy. Dr. Hosaka assured them that he will get a good anaesthesiologist. He then called Dr. Perfecta Gutierrez to administer the anaesthesia. DR. Gutierrez had difficulty in performing the intubation to Erlinda ramos which caused patient's nalibed became bluish and the patient is place in a trendelenburg position. During the whole period of her confinement, she incurred hospital bills and after being discharged from the hospital, she still needs constant medical attention. Petitioners filed a civil case 6 for damages with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City against herein private respondents alleging negligence in the management and care of Erlinda Ramos. the Regional Trial Court rendered judgment in favor of petitioners. this Court finds and so holds that defendants are liable to plaintiffs for damages. The defendants were guilty of, at the very least, negligence in the performance of their duty to plaintiff-patient Erlinda Ramos. ISSUES Whether a surgeon, an anaesthesiologist, and a hospital, should be made liable for the unfortunate comatose condition of a patient scheduled for cholecystectomy

HELD a) On the part of dr. perfecta Gutierrez (anesthesiologist) This court finds that she omitted to exercise reasonable care. The pre-operative evaluation of a patient prior to the administration of anesthesia is universally observed to lessen the possibility of anesthetic accidents. Respondent Dra. Gutierrez' act of seeing her patient for the first time only an hour before the scheduled operative procedure was, therefore, an act of exceptional negligence and professional irresponsibility. Her failure to follow this medical procedure is, therefore, a clear indicia of her negligence.

b) On the part of Dr. Orlina Hosaka (Surgeon) this Court finds that he is liable for the acts of Dr. Perfecta Gutierrez whom he had chosen to administer anesthesia on the patient as part of his obligation to provide the patient a good anesthesiologist', and for arriving for the scheduled operation almost three (3) hours late

c) On the part of the hospital(De Los Santos Medical Center) 1999 ruling This Court finds that it is liable for the acts of negligence of the doctors in their "practice of medicine" in the operating room. In the first place, hospitals exercise significant control in the hiring and firing of consultants and in the conduct of their work within the hospital premises. private hospitals, hire, fire and exercise real control over their attending and visiting "consultant" staff. While "consultants" are not, technically employees, a point which respondent hospital asserts in denying all responsibility for the patient's condition, 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. The defendants were made solidarily liable to pay petitioners damges. 2002 ruling DLSMC maintains that first, a hospital does not hire or engage the services of a consultant, but rather, accredits the latter and grants him or her the privilege of maintaining a clinic and/or admitting patients in the hospital .Second, it is not the hospital but the patient who pays the consultants fee for services rendered by the latter. Third, a hospital does not dismiss a consultant; instead, the latter may lose his or her accreditation or privileges granted by the hospital. Lastly, DLSMC 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. The hospitals obligation is limited to providing the patient with the preferred room accommodation, the nutritional diet and medications prescribed by the doctor, the equipment and facilities necessary for the treatment of the patient. The court ruled that There is no employer-employee relationship between DLSMC and Drs. Gutierrez and Hosaka which would hold DLSMC solidarily liable for the injury suffered by petitioner Erlinda under Article 2180 of the Civil Code. Private respondent De Los Santos Medical Center is hereby absolved from liability arising from the injury suffered by petitioner Erlinda Ramos on June 17, 1985.

PROFFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC VS. AGANA

FACTS Natividad Agana was rushed to Medical City because of difficulty of bowel movement and bloody anal discharge. Dr. Ampil and Dr. Fuentes performed hysterectomy on her. After DR. Fuentes finished and showed his work to DR. Ampil, he allowed Dr. Fuentes to leave the operating room. Dr. Ampil was about to complete the procedure when the attending nurses made some remarks that two pieces of gauze were missing. A "diligent search" was conducted but they could not be found. Dr. Ampil then directed that the incision be closed. A couple of days after, she complained of pain in her anal region, but the doctors told her that it was just a natural consequence of the surgery. Weeks after, her daughter found a piece of gauze protruding from her vagina, so Dr. Ampil manually extracted this, assuring Natividad that the pains will go away. However, the pain worsened, so she sought treatment at a hospital, where another 1.5 in piece of gauze was found in her vagina. She underwent another surgery. Sps. Agana filed a complaint for damages against PSI (owner of Medical City), Dr. Ampil, and Dr. Fuentes, alleging that the latter are liable for negligence for leaving 2 pieces of gauze in Natividad's body, and malpractice for concealing their acts of negligence. Enrique Agana also filed an administrative complaint for gross negligence and malpractice against the two doctors with the PRC (although only the case against Dr. Fuentes was heard since Dr. Ampil was abroad.

ISSUE WON PSI may be held solidarily liable for Dr. Ampil's negligence.

HELD Previously, employers cannot be held liable for the fault or negligence of its professionals. However, this doctrine has weakened since courts came to realize that modern hospitals are taking a more active role in supplying and regulating medical care to its patients, by employing staff of physicians, among others. Hence, there is no reason to exempt hospitals from the universal rule of respondeat superior PSI failed to perform the duty of exercising reasonable care to protect from harm all patients admitted into its facility for medical treatment. PSI failed to conduct an investigation of the matter reported in the note of the count nurse It is worthy to note that Dr. Ampil and Dr. Fuentes operated on Natividad with the assistance of the Medical City Hospitals staff, composed of resident doctors, nurses, and interns. As such, it is reasonable to conclude that PSI, as the operator of the hospital, has actual or constructive knowledge of the procedures carried out, particularly the report of the attending nurses that the two pieces of gauze were missing