Photo from Unsplash | Usman Yousaf
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
According to Article 2180 of the Civil Code, employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees acting within the scope of their assigned tasks.
Under the doctrine of apparent authority, a hospital can be held vicariously liable for the negligent acts of a physician providing care at the hospital if the plaintiff can prove these two factors: first, the hospital’s manifestations; and second, the patient’s reliance. (Noel Casumpang, et al. v. Nelson Cortejo, G.R. No. 171127, March 11, 2015)
An employee is any person in the service of another under a contract for hire, express, or implied, oral or written. (Jose Negre v. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, G.R. No. L-43795, April 05, 1985)
In determining whether an employer-employee 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.
The most important element is the employer’s control of the employee’s conduct, not only as to the result of the work to be done, but also as to the means and methods to accomplish it. (Pedro Dusol v. Emmarck Lazo, G.R. No. 200555, January 20, 2021)
Article 2180 of the Civil Code provides that:
“Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry.”
Although the employer is not the actual tortfeasor, the law makes him vicariously liable on the basis of the civil law principle of paterfamilias for failure to exercise due care and vigilance over the acts of one’s subordinates to prevent damage to another.
As a rule, hospitals are not liable for the negligence of their independent contractors. However, it may be found liable if the physician or independent contractor acts as an ostensible agent of the hospital. This exception is also known as the “doctrine of apparent authority.”
In the case of Noel Casumpang, et al. v. Nelson Cortejo (G.R. No. 171127, March 11, 2015), the Supreme Court ruled that:
Under the doctrine of apparent authority, a hospital can be held vicariously liable for the negligent acts of a physician providing care at the hospital, regardless of whether the physician is an independent contractor, unless the patient knows, or should have known, that the physician is an independent contractor. The elements of the action have been set out as follows:
For a hospital to be liable under the doctrine of apparent authority, a plaintiff must show that: (1) the hospital, or its agent, acted in a manner that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the individual who was alleged to be negligent was an employee or agent of the hospital; (2) where the acts of the agent create the appearance of authority, the plaintiff must also prove that the hospital had knowledge of and acquiesced in them; and (3) the plaintiff acted in reliance upon the conduct of the hospital or its agent, consistent with ordinary care and prudence.
Factors in determining liability of hospital
There are two (2) factors in determining hospital liability. These are:
- The first factor focuses on the hospital’s manifestations and is sometimes described as an inquiry whether the hospital acted in a manner which would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the individual who was alleged to be negligent was an employee or agent of the hospital. In this regard, the hospital need not make express representations to the patient that the treating physician is an employee of the hospital; rather a representation may be general and implied.
- The second factor focuses on the patient’s reliance. It is sometimes characterized as an inquiry on whether the plaintiff acted in reliance upon the conduct of the hospital or its agent, consistent with ordinary care and prudence. (Noel Casumpang, et al. v. Nelson Cortejo, G.R. No. 171127, March 11, 2015)
Simply put, a hospital can be held vicariously liable for the negligent acts of a physician (or an independent contractor) providing care at the hospital if the plaintiff can prove these two factors: first, the hospital’s manifestations; and second, the patient’s reliance.
Read also: National Hospital Week
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding taxation and taxpayer’s remedies, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/0917-5772207.
All rights reserved.