PANGANIBAN, PRINCESS SARAH G.

MEDICINE
11481242 | G02
JIZ

LEGAL
DR.

KAREN

A. RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR 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 1.

xxx In order to successfully pursue such a claim, a

patient, or his or her family as in this case, "must
prove that a health care provider, in most cases a
physician, either failed to do something which a
reasonably prudent health care provider would
have done, or that he or she did something that a
reasonably prudent provider would not have
done; and that failure or action caused injury to
the patient.2 xxx

In Cereno vs. Court of Appeals3, its inapplicability was

explained in the following manner:

xxx this Court affirms the ruling of the CA that the

BRMC [hospital, as employer] is not an
indispensible party. The core issue as agreed upon
by the parties and stated in the pre-trial order is
whether petitioners were negligent in the
performance of their duties. It pertains to
acts/omissions of petitioners for which they could
be held liable. The cause of action against
petitioners may be prosecuted fully and the
determination of their liability may be arrived at
without impleading the hospital where they
1 Blacks Law Dictionary.
2 Dela Torre vs. Imbuido, 736 SCRA 655, September 29, 2014.
3 682 SCRA 18, September 26, 2012.
1

are employed. As such, the BRMC cannot be

considered an indispensible party without whom
no final determination can be had of an action.
Xxx

Although Respondeat Superior is a legal doctrine, its

applicability depends on how each fact of the case is
presented. It is, moreover, not applicable in every instance
that there is a master, as explained in cases above. It does
not automatically transfer the burden to employer whenever
the employee transgressed with what is expected from
them.

B. CAPTAIN OF THE SHIP

A 2007 case decided by the Supreme Court briefly
defined what is a captain of the ship, in the case of
Professional Services v. Agana4, 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.
Applied in Mendoza v. Casumpang, a surgical
operation is the responsibility of the surgeon
performing it. He must personally ascertain that the
counts of instruments and materials used before the surgery
and prior to sewing the patient up have been correctly
done. To provide an example to the medical profession and
to stress the need for constant vigilance in attending to a
patients health, the award of exemplary damages in this
case is in order.
Simply put, Captain of the Ship commands and heads
the whole operation it is his responsibility that everyone
under him performs their task in the proper manner. He is
to be treated with utmost respect as his command is what to
be followed by the servants or agents. In line with this, the
captain of the ship may be liable in cases where medical
malpractice by the agents since it is the Captain who is incharge of their acts.

4 Professional Services v. Agana, G.R. No. 126297. January 31, 2007.

2

C. GOOD SAMARITAN
Blacks law dictionary explained the Good Samaritan
Doctrine is used by rescuers to avoid civil liability for
injuries arising from their negligence. Its purpose is to
encourage emergency assistance by removing the threat of
liability for damage done by the assistance. However, the
assistance must be reasonable; a rescuer cannot benefit
from the Good Samaritan doctrine if the assistance is
reckless or grossly negligent.

Three key elements

(1) the care rendered was performed as the result of the
emergency;
(2) the initial emergency or injury was not caused by the
person invoking the defense; and
(3) the emergency care was not given in a grossly negligent
or reckless manner.

In the case of Cereno vs. Court of Appeals5, it was

clarified that At 10:59 P.M., the operation on Charles
Maluluy-on was finished. By that time, however, Dr. Tatad
was already working with the obstetricians who will
perform surgery on Lilia Aguila. There being no other
available anesthesiologist to assist them, Drs. Zafe
and Cereno decided to defer the operation on
Raymond.

Moreover, Drs. Zafe and Cereno, in the meantime,

proceeded to examine Raymond and they found that the
latters blood pressure was normal and "nothing in him was
significant." Dr. Cereno reported that based on the xray
result he interpreted, the fluid inside the thoracic cavity of
Raymond was minimal at around 200-300 cc. xxx
In this case, Drs. Zafe and Cereno were the good
Samaritans who performed at the instance of emergency,
without gross negligent.
Good Samaritan doctrine is a way of removal of any
responsibility by doing remedies in cases or emergency. By
5 682 SCRA 18, September 26, 2012.
3

immediately assisting a patient, with good care and in good

faith, the person is absolved with any responsibility, if ever
something unfortunate happens. The title of the doctrine,
moreover, explains the doctrine itself as it is related to
being a good servant to others in cases of emergency.

D. RES IPSA LOQUITUR - Res ipsa loquitur is a Latin

phrase which literally means the thing or the transaction
speaks for itself.

As explained in the case of Jarcia, Jr. vs. People6,

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur as a rule of
evidence is unusual to the law of negligence
which recognizes that prima facie negligence may
be established without direct proof and furnishes
a substitute for specific proof of negligence. The
doctrine, however, is not a rule of substantive law,
but merely a mode of proof or a mere procedural
convenience. The rule, when applicable to the
facts and circumstances of a given case, is not
meant to and does not dispense with the
requirement of proof of culpable negligence on
the party charged. It merely determines and
regulates what shall be prima facie evidence
thereof and helps the plaintiff in proving a breach
of the duty. The doctrine can be invoked when and
only when, under the circumstances involved,
direct evidence is absent and not readily
available.

Requisites:
(1) the accident was of a kind which does not ordinarily
occur unless someone is negligent;
(2) the instrumentality or agency which caused the injury
was under the exclusive control of the person in charge; and
(3) the injury suffered must not have been due to any
voluntary action or contribution of the person injured.

6 Jarcia, Jr. vs. People, 666 SCRA 336, February 15, 2012.
4

Moreover, it was expounded that Res Ipsa Loquitur is

grounded in the superior logic of ordinary human
experience and, on the basis of such experience or common
knowledge, negligence may be deduced from the mere
occurrence of the accident itself. Hence, res ipsa loquitur is
applied in conjunction with the doctrine of common
knowledge. To further elaborate:

xxx Hence, in cases where the res ipsa loquitur is

applicable, the court is permitted to find a
physician negligent upon proper proof of injury to
the patient, without the aid of expert testimony,
where the court from its fund of common
knowledge can determine the proper standard of
care. Where common knowledge and experience
teach that a resulting injury would not have
occurred to the patient if due care had been
exercised, an inference of negligence may be
drawn giving rise to an application of the doctrine
of res ipsa loquitur without medical evidence,
which is ordinarily required to show not only what
occurred but how and why it occurred. In the case
at bench, we give credence to the testimony of
Mrs. Santiago by applying the doctrine of res ipsa
loquitur.
Res ipsa loquitur is not a rigid or ordinary
doctrine to be perfunctorily used but a rule to be
cautiously
applied,
depending
upon
the
circumstances of each case. It is generally
restricted to situations in malpractice cases
where a layman is able to say, as a matter of
common knowledge and observation, that
the consequences of professional care were
not as such as would ordinarily have
followed if due care had been exercised. Xxx

On the other hand, in the case of Dr. Jaime T. Cruz vs.

Felicisimo Agas, Jr.7, the Court agrees with Dr. Agas that his
purported negligence in performing the colonoscopy on Dr.
Cruz was not immediately apparent to a layman to
justify the application of res ipsa loquitur doctrine. As
explained, to wit:
7 G.R. No. 204095, June 15, 2015.
5

xxx Dr. Agas was able to establish that the

internal bleeding sustained by Dr. Cruz was due
to the abnormal condition and configuration
of his sigmoid colon which was beyond his
control considering that the said condition could
not be detected before a colonoscopic procedure.
Dr. Agas adequately explained that no clinical
findings, laboratory tests, or diagnostic imaging,
such as x-rays, ultrasound or computed
tomography (CT) scan of the abdomen, could have
detected this condition prior to an endoscopic
procedure. xxx

Hence, the application of the doctrine Res Ipsa

Loquitur should be treated with utmost knowledge of
medical practice as it cannot simply be applied once
unfortunate event happens to a patient. As discussed, such
doctrine is a case to case basis even if it stemmed from a
matter of common knowledge.
True enough, in any medical malpractice cases, this
doctrine is always being contested by the patients to be
applicable against the physicians. It is due to the simple
meaning of the doctrine that it speaks for itself, the
obvious malpractice which resulted into an unfortunate
event; that were it not for the physicians act, everything
would have been resulted into the betterment of patient.
The doctrine, however, has limitation and cannot be just
applicable at any moment especially when the physician has
no proximate act leading to any unsuccessful event.

E. BORROWED SERVANT

In the case of Nogales vs. Capitol Medical Center8 the

Court defined the Borrowed Servant Doctrine, to wit:

xxx On the liability of the other respondents, the

Court of Appeals applied the "borrowed servant"
doctrine considering that Dr. Estrada was an
8 G.R. No. 142625, December 19, 2006.
6

independent
contractor
who
was
merely
exercising hospital privileges. This doctrine
provides that once the surgeon enters the
operating room and takes charge of the
proceedings, the acts or omissions of operating
room personnel, and any negligence associated
with such acts or omissions, are imputable to the
surgeon. While the assisting physicians and
nurses may be employed by the hospital, or
engaged by the patient, they normally become the
temporary servants or agents of the surgeon in
charge while the operation is in progress, and
liability may be imposed upon the surgeon for
their negligent acts under the doctrine of
respondeat superior. xxx

Borrowed servant is the one commanded by any

superior, as explained in the above case. they are, however,
not under the liability when something happened. They are
absolved due to the person who is in-charge of the main
operation. As mentioned, they are mere agents; thus,
liability is attached on the Captain of The Ship in any
negligent act.