1. PSI’s liability is based on the following doctrines applied in medical malpractice cases:  Doctrine of Ostensible agent  Doctrine of Corporate Negligence

2. In G.R. No. 126297, PSI alleged in its petition that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that: (1) it is estopped from raising the defense that Dr. Ampil is not its employee; (2) it is solidarily liable with Dr. Ampil; and (3) it is not entitled to its counterclaim against the Aganas. PSI contends that Dr. Ampil is not its employee, but a mere consultant or independent contractor. As such, he alone should answer for his negligence.

3. Doctrine of ostensible agent Ostensible agent: A person who has been given the appear- ance of being an employee or acting (an agent) for another (principal), which would make anyone dealing with the ostensible agent reasonably believe he/she was an employee or agent. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/ostensible+agent

4. Doctrine of ostensible agent Ostensible agents: They usually get a certain percentage of the fee paid to the hospital. They are considered members of the staff of the department and are appointed by the governing board of the hospital. Solis, P. D (1998) Medical jurisprudence: The practice of medicine and the law. Quezon City: Garotech

5. Doctrine of ostensible agent  The hospital must be held liable for negligent acts of ostensible agents Solis, P. D (1998) Medical jurisprudence: The practice of medicine and the law. Quezon City: Garotech

6. Doctrine of corporate negligence Hospital/medical center or healthcare agency as an entity is negligent. Failure of the corporation to follow an established standard of conduct to which all healthcare corporations should conform in a given situation. The determination of negligence is based on violations of duty owed to the patient by the hospital. Parelli, R.J. (1997) Medicolegal issues for radiographers. Florida: CRC

7. Duties of the hospital To furnish a safe and well maintained building and ground To furnish adequate and safe equipments To exercise reasonable care in the selection of the members of the hospital staff Solis, P. D (1998) Medical jurisprudence: The practice of medicine and the law. Quezon City: Garotech

8. In G.R. No. 126467, the Aganas maintain that the Court of Appeals erred in finding that Dr. Fuentes is not guilty of negligence or medical malpractice, invoking the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. They contend that the pieces of gauze are prima facie proofs that the operating surgeons have been negligent.

9. Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur “The thing speaks for itself” Nature of wrongful act or injury is suggestive of negligence A rule of evidence which infers negligence from the nature of the injury sustained by the plaintiff Solis, P. D (1998) Medical jurisprudence: The practice of medicine and the law. Quezon City: Garotech

10. Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur Requisites for the application: 1.The accident must be of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone’s negligence 2.It must be caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant 3.It must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plantiff Solis, P. D (1998) Medical jurisprudence: The practice of medicine and the law. Quezon City: Garotech

11. Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur In this case: Object left in the patient’s body at the time of surgery Solis, P. D (1998) Medical jurisprudence: The practice of medicine and the law. Quezon City: Garotech