Define Ostensible Agency Act OR "doctrine of apparent authority.
Nogales vs. Capitol Medical Center (G.R. No. 142625, December 19, 2006)
Ruled AND PRINCIPLE
In general, a hospital is not liable for the negligence of an independent contractor-physician. There
is, however, an exception to this principle. The hospital may be liable if the physician is the
"ostensible" agent of the hospital.44 This exception is also known as the "doctrine of apparent
authority."45 In Gilbert v. Sycamore Municipal Hospital,46 the Illinois Supreme Court explained the
doctrine of apparent authority in this wise:
[U]nder 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."
The element of "holding out" on the part of the hospital does not require an express
representation by the hospital that the person alleged to be negligent is an employee.
Rather, the element is satisfied if the hospital holds itself out as a provider of emergency
room care without informing the patient that the care is provided by independent contractors.
The element of justifiable reliance on the part of the plaintiff is satisfied if the plaintiff relies
upon the hospital to provide complete emergency room care, rather than upon a specific
physician.
The doctrine of apparent authority essentially involves two factors to determine the liability of an
independent-contractor physician.
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.47 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.48
The doctrine of apparent authority is a species of the doctrine of estoppel. Article 1431 of the Civil
Code provides that "[t]hrough estoppel, an admission or representation is rendered conclusive upon
the person making it, and cannot be denied or disproved as against the person relying thereon."
Estoppel rests on this rule: "Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act, or omission,
intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a particular thing true, and to act upon such
belief, he cannot, in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act or omission, be permitted to
falsify it
What are serious physical injuries:
1. Injured person becomes insane, imbecile, impotent or blind
2. Injured person –
1. loses the use of speech or the power to hear or to smell, loses an eye, a hand, foot, arm or
leg.
2. loses the use of any such member
3. becomes incapacitated for the work in which he had been habitually engaged
3. Injured person
1. becomes deformed
2. loses any other member of his body
3. loses the use thereof
4. becomes ill or incapacitated for the performance of the work in which he had been habitually
engaged in for more than 90 days
1. Injured person becomes ill or incapacitated for labor for more than 30 days (but not
more than 90 days)
ELEMENTS OF PHYSICAL INJURIES INFLICTED IN A TUMULTOUS AFFRAY: (252)
1. that there is a tumultuous affray which is when at least 4 persons take part in it not in groups
2. That a participant or some participants thereof suffer serious physical injuries or physical injuries of a
less serious nature only.
3. that the person responsible therefor cannot be identified.
4. That all those who appear to have used violence upon the person of the offended party are known.
Mutilation vs SPI
Mutilation’s intent is to deprice a person, totally or partially of some of the essential organs for
reproduction, while SPI’s intent is not to kill and may also be done thru reckless imprudence or simple
homicide.
Serious physical injuries
Serious physical injuries is qualified when the crime is committed against the same persons enumerated
in the article on parricide or when it is attended by any of the circumstances defining the crime of
murder. However, serious physical injuries resulting from excessive chastisement by parents is not
qualified serious physical injuries
Less serious Physical Injury Circumstances qualifying the offense:
1. when there is manifest intent to insult or offend the injured person
2. when there are circumstances adding ignominy to the offense
3. when the victim is either the offender’s parents, ascendants, guardians, curators or teachers
4. when the victim is a person of rank or person in authority, provided the crime is not direct assault
5. It falls under this article even if there was no incapacity but the medical treatment was for 13 days
