Again, some cases on doctors in hospitals which of course you’ve heard about this

before, you’ve probably studied them already. Again, I’d like to emphasize for
purposes of allocating responsibility in medical negligence of physicians(?).
The employer-employee relationship in effect exists between the hospitals and their
attending and visiting physicians. Even if in reality these visiting consultants of
hospitals are not actually employees of the hospitals but because these consultants
do their work/jobs without any participation whatsoever from the hospital, the
hospitals however, do not direct the manner by which these doctors, especially
these consultants on how to perform their jobs. Therefore, the most important
hallmark of employer-employee relationship is absent, and that is the control test.
Therefore, there should be an employer-employee relationship.

In so many cases, it is held that there exists an employer-employee relationship

between the hospital and the consultants using certain theories like holding out
theory, doctrine of apparent authority. The latter is usually used to justify a
decision making the hospital liable or any act that is done by a consultant. Holding
out theory because the hospital consultant “holds out” that doctor to be under his
control and supervision. In NOGALES vs CAPITOL MEDICAL CENTER – I’m sure
you’ve come across that decision in your torts and damages subject. This is not even
a consultant of the hospital but an independent contractor physician but has a
relationship with the hospital, in this case, the Capitol Medical Center. His
agreement with the hospital is when he has a patient because he was an OB-Gyne he
can bring that patient to the hospital and he can avail of the facilities of the hospital
including the assistance of the doctors and nurses of the hospital. So that happened
in one case involving Nogales spouses where the wife who was about to give birth
suffered some problems. That doctor brought the woman to the hospital. The
husband was made to sign a consent form bearing the letterhead of Capitol Medical
Center, during the times that they were attended to the wife of the husband. He
observed that the independent contractor physician was in constant communication
with the chairman of the OB-Gyne department which proves that he used the
facilities of the hospital including assistance of the nurses. In that case, even if there
is actually no employer-employee relationship whatsoever between the
independent contractor physician and the hospital, the hospital was held
responsible/liable based on the holding out theory. The victim/the husband was
made to believe that under the circumstances, the doctor is actually an employee, an
integral part of the hospital. Take note of the two theories.

Diligence, as we said earlier, under 2180 - diligence not only in the selection of the
employee but also in the supervision of that employee. In Travel & Tours Advisers
vs. Cruz March 14, 2016 case. With respect to the supervision of its employees, th
employer should 1) formulate standard operating procedures; 2) monitor their
implementation/compliance with these operating procedures; 3) impose
disciplinary measures for their breach. In other words, in order for that employer to
be able to prove that it exercised due diligence in the supervision of that employee,
it must be able to prove these things. The other aspect is due diligence in the
selection. There are other jurisprudence there but I did not include them because
they are relatively old than this one.

Responsibility of 2 or more persons who are liable, solidary or joint tortfeasors are
solidarily liable. There’s this case of People vs. Inovero - illegal recruitment case
Her co-accused were never apprehended, never arrested, but she was arrested. She
was the one who got convicted. As regards the civil liability, she claims that she
never even received the money that was claimed by the victims/complainants. It
was actually her co-accused who remained at large who received the money.
Therefore, she should not be held liable to pay civil liability. But what did the SC
say? It said, there is liability towards the victims of their illegal recruitment which
was solidary. Regardless of whether she actually received the amounts paid or not.
Notwithstanding that her co-accused having escaped arrest until now because of the
fact that they are joint tortfeasors. Being a joint tortfeasor, she is solidarily liable
with her co-joint tortfeasors.

Let’s go to HUMAN RELATIONS. You know the basic provisions of human relations,
in relation to abuse of the rights of another. Art. 19, “every person must, in the
exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give
everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith”. That is the basic provision
when it comes to abuse of right. The concomitant provisions there are Art. 20 and
21. When it comes to Art. 20, it is violation of law. So the act there can be done either
willfully or negligently. In Art. 21, it is a violation of something contrary to morals,
good customs and public order and that person can only become liable only when he
acted willfully, not negligently. Having said that, let’s talk about certain cases here.

1. A right, though by itself legal – because it is recognized or granted by law, such

will never become a source of some illegality as when such right is exercised in a
manner which does not conform to the standard norms enshrined in Art. 19 of the
civil code. Not because you have a right that you can exercise means that it has no
limitations. You can only exercise that right if you are not able to injure others’s
rights. In one case, in order that one can be liable for abuse of right, there must first
be a right of another that was violated. Of course, indeed, even if one abuses his own
property. For instance, burning your own car, that’s abuse of his property. If there is
no one who is consequently damaged or injured as a result, that person will not be
liable. It is only when as a consequence of the abuse of property by one person that
another person was injured, then that violator becomes liable based on this
provision.

In Orchard Gold Country Club vs Yu and Yuhico. Yu and Yuhico are members of
the Orchard Gold, one Sunday they went to the club and they want to play. Due to a
“no twosome policy” of the property. Of course, contained in the handout, prohibiting
groups of less than 3 players from teeing of on weekends. However, they insisted on
playing. They were able to play except that subsequently, the club suspended them
and their membership because of the violation of the particular rule. What did the
SC say when they filed an action against the club? Membership in the golf club is a
mere privilege. Regular members are entitled to use all the facilities and the
privileges of the club, but subject to its rules and regulations. The respondents
deliberately and consciously violated the said rules and regulations. Therefore,
mental anguish experienced by them by reason of the suspension of their
membership was brought upon them by themselves. If damage results from a
person's exercising his legal rights, it is damnum absque injuria." They actually
defied the rules and regulations of the club so they were suspended. There was no
one else to blame but themselves. There was an abuse of their rights as members.

Another case in 2016, Meralco vs Sps. Ramos. In this case, Meralco claimed that
they found an outside/illegal connection to the electric meter of the spouses ramos.
They later found out that the sister-in-law of the Ramos’ wife made the illegal
connection. With this, Meralco cut-off the power supply of Sps. Ramos even without
notice. What did the SC say? In this case, the terms and conditions of Meralco’s
service contract state that, before disconnection is made in case of or to prevent
fraud, the company may adjust the bill of the customer accordingly or if the bill
adjusted bill is not paid, the company may disconnect the services. So it is only after
the refusal of the owner of that service to pay the adjusted billing will Meralco have
the right to disconnect. In other words, there should be a notice first in the form of
and adjusted billing but it was found out here that it was in November 1999 that the
power supply was cut. However it was also established that it was just in December
of that year meaning 1 month the disconnection that the adjusted billing was sent to
Sps. Ramos. The SC said that there was an abuse of right on the part of Meralco.
Meralco has all the right to disconnect except that it did not follow the procedure so
there was a violation of due process. That’s an abuse of right.

What is DOCTRINE OF INFORMED CONSENT?

There’s this case ALANO vs. MAGUD-LOGMAO. Physicians are obligated to obtain
the consent of the patient before performing a medical procedure. If a patient, dies
under a certain law, the hospital, not just the hospital, but even the patient
himself/relatives, can allow the harvest of the internal organs of that patient right?
There is such a law. The hospital can initiate that, the harvest of internal organs, the
eye, it happened to the son of Mico Sotto. Hinarvest eyes niya with the consent of Ali
Sotto. In this case of Alano, there’s this guy who was drunk and while walking in the
overpass somewhere in Kamuning, he fell. He did not die immediately and was
brought to East Ave Medical Center. The hospital tried to treat him but they couldn’t
do anything about it so he was brought to NKI. In NKI, he died and his organs were
harvested. Later on, the parents of this guy filed an action against the hospital
director Alano. According to them, they did not consent to the harvest of the internal
organs. In the facts of the case it was proved that Alano was not negligent because
before, he made specific instructions to his medical team that before they harvest
the internal organs, they have to comply with procedures. In fact there was a
medico-legal nbi officer there who supervised the harvesting and sent notices to the
address of the person based on the information given to them by the east ave
medical. Unfortunately, the information relayed by East Ave Med to NKI was wrong.
It was not the exact address and that’s why the notice was belatedly received by the
parents of the victim. Although they received it, it was too late since when they got
to the hospital, the organs were already harvested. That’s why according to the SC,
because of those acts made by Director Alano, he was not made liable because he did
everything, made sure to convey the notice. There was no abuse of right on his part.
Under the law, it is his right to harvest the organs, provided there is consent.
Problem is, there was none but it was not obviously his fault.

MALICIOUS PROECUTION. MARSMAN AND COMPANY VS LIGO

Malicious prosecution is an action for damages brought by one against whom a case
or other legal proceedings has been instituted maliciously and without probable
cause and it is brought after the termination of such case or other proceeding in
favor of the defendant. That is the nature of a malicious prosecution action. It used
to be that malicious prosecution would pertain to an unfounded criminal case. But
that is no longer true. In the case, while Gerry associated with unfounded criminal
act, the term malicious prosecution has been expanded to included unfounded civil
suits instituted just to vex and humiliate the defendant despite the absence of cause
of action or probable cause. At present, cases filed regardless of its nature whether it
is civil or criminal or administrative case. If you are the one who was sued in that
case and can prove that it has no basis and has no reason why it was filed but
because of the malicious intention of the person who sued you, you can get back at
that person and file an action for malicious prosecution wherein you will be able to
recover damages from that person. That is the essence of malicious prosecution.
Before you will need an acquittal or to have that criminal case to be terminated
before you can file an action for malicious prosecution. Now it includes civil actions
and even administrative actions or cases filed before the fiscal’s office and that
fiscal’s office dismisses the case. Even if the case did not reach the court, you can file
an action for malicious prosecution.
UNFAIR COMPETITION UNDER ART. 28.
There’s this case of ___________
SC differentiated unfair competition under Art 28 and the one provided for RA 8293
or the Law on Intellectual Property. There is also unfair competition as a cause of
action in RA 8293.
As basis for distinction, 1) unfair competition under Art. 28 is broader than the
concept under RA 8293 because in the former, any kind of unfairness in the conduct
of you business can be categorized as “unfair competition” for as long as it is done
with force, intimidation, violence, or any kind of tactic or high-handed manner like
“cutthroat competition for example, like poaching clients another business rival,
stealing trade secrets of your business competitor. These are all covered by Art. 28
of the Civil Code. Whereas in RA 8293, it is limited to the act of one person in
passing of his goods as that of a competitor. Kunyari Levi’s tapos gumagawa siya ng
pantalon na tinatatakan nya ng Levi’s pero di naman talaga gawa ng Levi’s company.
2) Before you can file an action for unfair competition based on RA 8293, you must
show that your product that has been faked/imitated by another person is covered
by a patent registration. In Art. 28 of the Civil Code, there is no necessity. It is not
necessary that the product that is imitated is covered by a patent.

Another case, COCA-COLA BOTTLERS vs SPS. BERNARDO

The Sps. Bernardo are exclusive distributors of Coca-Cola Bottlers in a specific area.
Later on, Coca-Cola Bottlers required the Sps. Bernardo to submit a list of their
customers on the pretext that Coca-Cola will formulate policy defining its territorial
dealership in Quezon City. If the Sps. Bernardo will agree, their contract of exclusive
dealership will be renewed for a longer period and that’s why they agreed to supply
the information to Coca-Cola Bottlers. However, Coca-Cola did not renew the
contract, instead, the Sps. Bernardo discovered that Coca-Cola Bottlers were
poaching their clients using the list. They filed a case for unfair competition against
Coca-Cola Bottlers under Art. 28. Coca-Cola Bottlers lost the case because it dealt
with the spouses in a high-handed manner.

PREJUDICIAL QUESTION
Two elements of prejudicial question.
1) The previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately
related in the criminal action;
2) The resolution of that issue determines whether or not the criminal action will
proceed. Take note, it says, the “previously instituted civil action” which means that
when it is the criminal action that is filed ahead of the civil action, then there is no
prejudicial question. Otherwise, you cannot exercise your right or a benefit that you
can derive from the prejudicial question if the criminal action is filed ahead of the
civil action.

Before the amendment of Sec. 7 of the Rule, this prejudicial question was abused by
lawyers when their client is sued criminally but they find a way to file a civil action
against the person who sued their client. They will make something out of that
which suspends the criminal action because the issue in the civil action is
determinative whether or not the criminal action may proceed. It’s an afterthought
on the part of the lawyers and it is very convenient. That’s why the SC amended it.
So now, you can invoke prejudicial question only when the civil action was filed
ahead of the criminal action. If your client has a cause of action civilly against that
person who filed a criminal case against him, you should file that civil action and not
wait until the criminal action is filed. If you did not file a civil action, it only means
that you do not have a cause of action. There’s this one case where there’s a
prejudicial question, actually there was none but the criminal court was informed
about the pendency of a civil action which is in relation to the criminal action. What
did the court do? The court, even without motion, dismissed the criminal case not
only suspended, but dismissed it. The SC said it was wrong on 2 counts because 1)
You cannot suspend the criminal case on the ground of prejudicial question without
a motion; 2) even if there is a prejudicial question and there’s a motion for
suspension, it cannot dismiss the case but merely suspend. On both counts mali
yung judge. Who can file a motion for suspension on the ground of PQ? Both private
complainant as well as the accused. But you may say that it is the accused because
he is the person that will be affected by of the criminal case even if there is no basis.
Therefore, he will be interested in suspending the criminal action. But in a very old
case, the SC ruled that even the private complainant himself may file a motion to
suspend the criminal action if he wants.
Ginagamit niyo yung PQ sa civil case for declaration of nullity and then bigamy case
is filed, is that a PQ? There’s a pending declaration of nullity and this person was
sued for bigamy then he asked for suspension of the bigamy case. The answer is NO
because under the Family Code, you can only contract a subsequent marriage if your
previous void marriage has been judicially declared void. Therefore, regardless of
the decision of the court in that civil action for declaration of nullity, it will not affect
your crime of bigamy. Because the crime of bigamy obviously has already been
committed from the moment that you entered into that subsequent marriage
without your previous marriage having been declared void.
PQ ba kung valid yung previous marriage then nag-contract ka ng subsequent
marriage then nagfile ka ng declaration of nullity dun sa subsequent marriage,
would that be PQ if a bigamy case is filed against you? The answer is NO. The fact is,
you contracted a subsequent marriage during a subsisting marriage. The fact that
this subsequent marriage was later on declared as a nullity, does not affect your
liability for bigamy.
How about if assuming that you have an existing marriage then later on you
contracted a subsequent marriage then you filed an annulment case of that
subsequent marriage alleging that you were simply forced to enter into that
subsequent marriage. Then a criminal case for bigamy is filed against you. Can you
file a motion for suspension on the ground of PQ? This time YES. Why? Pinepwersa
ka lang eh, if you can prove na pinwersa ka lang to contract a subsequent marriage,
hindi ka guilty ng bigamy. Only kung napwersa ka. Pero kung ang ground mo is
mistake, paanong hindi mo alam na meron kang previous marriage?

Before we leave this PQ, there’s this case of REYES vs. COMELEC
The application of the principle of prejudicial question in election contests.
If there is a pending disqualification case or a petition to cancel the certificate of
candidacy, when the evidence of guilt or the likelihood of the cancellation is strong,
the proclamation of the winning candidate must be suspended. In other words, the
principle of PQ is applied. Although strictly speaking, there is no PQ here because
this doesn't involve one criminal case and one civil case which is the essence of PQ.
But it is akin to a prejudicial question, which is why there is a need to suspend the
proclamation of the winning candidate.

LOSS OF EARNING CAPACITY

What’s the formula for loss of earning capacity? Don’t forget this.
2/3 multiplied by (80-age of victim at the time of death) multiplied by a reasonable
portion of the annual net income which should have been received as support by the
heirs.

Annual net income. This means gross annual income. How do you arrive at the net
income? We deduct living expenses from the gross income. How do you determine
living expenses? You have to prove it. What if you cannot prove it? That is the time
you apply jurisprudence which is – when you cannot prove, the living expenses is
deemed to be 50% of the gross annual income. Thus, deduct 50%.

Is that it? Tapos na ba dun? After that you apply the formula and you get x amount
that is the one that will be awarded to the victim or at least the heirs of the victim?
No. Not necessarily.
In one case, allowances are made for circumstances which would reduce the life
expectancy of the victim. Like the nature of the work of the victim or his lifestyle,
age or state of health prior to death. All of these will be taken into consideration to
determine the appropriate life expectancy to be used for purposes of computing loss
of earning capacity. Just like in one case, the victim is a jeepney driver. The court
took judicial notice of the fact that a jeepney driver performs a very rigorous job
driving that jeepney from morning to night. According to the SC, it is not expected
that this person will drive a jeepney for the rest of his productive life. Therefore, the
supreme court reduced the life expectancy of that person. That will be the one to be
multiplied to the annual net income.

Baka mailto kayo, this is very tricky. What is the ____ when it comes to victims of a
crime/accident (??)
Under Art 2206, the heirs of the victim are entitled to indemnity for loss of earning
capacity. Compensation of this nature is awarded not for loss of earnings but for loss
of capacity to earn money. Why? Because in an accident, there is no loss of earnings.
Walang nawala, but what was lost was the capacity to earn. . It is not loss of earnings
but loss of earning capacity. Loss of earning capacity partakes of the nature of actual
damagesNow, there’s this very interesting case on loss of earning capacity.
The victim did not die as a consequence of the accident but was disabled and
therefore entitled to loss of earning capacity for physical disability. The accident he
met when he was 50 y/o. The SC applied the rule the formula but he died at the age
of 59. The defendant wants to make an adjustment of its liability because the victim
was not able to live up to 80 y/o therefore they should reduce the 80. It should not
be constant 80 because in this case although he did not die, he died at the age of 59
and alleged that it was unfair to use 80. The SC said that 80 must be constant. Hindi
pwede baguhin. For purposes of determining loss of earning capacity, life
expectancy remains at 80. Otherwise, the computation for loss of earning capacity
will never become final being always subject to the eventuality of the victim’s death.
On the other hand, the computation should not change even if the victim lived
beyond 80 y/o. Hindi maga-adjust kahit 90 na yung victim. That person was entitled
because of his loss of earning capacity because he was merely disabled.

Two Kinds of interest

Monetary and Compensatory Interest.
Monetary is the one that you are liable to pay if you borrowed money and made use
of the money of another. Once stipulated by the parties, to be compensation for the
use of money. When it comes to monetary interest, in order for it not to be void, it
should be in writing.
Compensatory is the interest that you can recover for an obligation to pay a sum of
money if there is delay in the payment of that monetary obligation. The basis of
compensatory interest is delay. Question. Is there a necessity for the written
stipulation of monetary interest? No because it is the law that imposes that
compensatory interest. No need for any stipulation between the parties regarding
recovery of compensatory interest.

What is the rate of Interest

Whatever is stipulated upon by the parties, if there is a stipulation.
If it is monetary interest, they stipulated 10% per annum, that will be the rate of
interest for monetary interest. If in that same agreement they also stipulated on
compensatory interest, that if the party will not be able to pay the monetary
obligation within the stipulated period, then he has to pay compensatory interest of
10%. Is that valid? Yes because it was stipulated. When will the 10% compensatory
interest become due? At the time there is delay (because compensatory).

How about if there’s monetary stipulated but there is not stipulation as to the rate,
what will be the rate of interest? It will be 6%. Kahit loan, 6% because of Central
Bank circular No. 799. Now, when can you incur compensatory interest, upon delay?
Remember the principle in oblicon. Even if there is an ordinary delay, it does not
mean that there is already default. Therefore, the interest which is the
compensation for legal delay will accrue only from the moment that there is
demand. Demand is necessary, whether judicial or extra-judicial.

If at the time of the demand, there is no certainty yet with regard to the amount,
assuming that the money you are trying to collect from a person is not a loan or for a
use or forbearance of money (no fixed amount yet). What you are claiming from him
is actual damages, let’s say P2M na nagastos sa hospital, may 6% compensatory
interest na ba? Wala pa. Kailan magc-compute ng 6% compensatory interest? From
the moment that the amount due is determined with reasonable certainty. If there’s
a dispute between you and the other party, the court will determine the amount.
Only then will the 6% compensatory interest will only be imposed upon the
judgment of the court if the amount to be covered is not yet determined with
reasonable certainty.

How about the monetary interest, when will the 6% accrue? From day one, from the
moment that you borrow the money because that is the compensation for the use of
his money.

Eh di matured na, hindi mo pa binabayaran, tumatakbo pa rin yung monetary

interest. Can that monetary interest earn legal interest? Yes it will. When? Upon
judicial demand which is from the moment that you file a case against that party.
You don’t recover legal interest from compensatory interest, only in monetary
interest.

Upon the finality of that decision, what will be the rate of interest? It reverts to 6%.

Let’s assume that there is an agreement between you and the other party for
compensatory interest at 10%, then there’s already a final judgment adjudging the
other party liable to you for payment of that amount including compensatory
interest. What’s the rate of the compensatory interest that you can recover when
that other party has yet to pay the judgment award, will it be 10% stipulated or the
legal 6%? Jurisprudence is not very clear on that but it says 6% upon the finality of
judgment because it now partakes the nature of forbearance of goods or credit. So,
just to be on the safe side, follow the jurisprudence. (cases)