DOCTRINE OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY
Our system of liability based on fault is part of an economic and social
-Doctrine of Imputed Negligence/Command Responsibility.
-Vicarious liability means the responsibility of a person, who is not
negligent, for the wrongful conduct or negligence of another.
Art. 2180, Civil Code of the Philippines
Obligations is demandable not only for ones own acts or omission
but also fort those persons whom one is responsible
.xxx the owners or managers of an establishment or enterprise
are likewise responsible for damages caused by their employees
in the service of the branches in which the latter are employed or
on the occassion of their functions
Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their
employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their
assigned task, even though the former are not engaged in any
business or industry
The responsibility treated of this article shall cease when the
person herein mentioned prove that they observe all the diligence
of a good father of a family to prevent injury.
Doctrine of 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.
DOCTRINE OF CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
- Doctrine of Common Fault
- It has been defined as conduct on the part of the plaintiff or injured
party, contributing as a legal cause to the harm he has suffered,
which falls below the standard which he is required to conform to
his own protection.
- It is the act or omission amounting to want of care on the part of
the complaining party which, concurring with the defendants
negligence, is the proximate cause of the injury.
DOCTRINE OF IMPUTED CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE - is the
device where the plaintiff is denied recovery against the defendant when
the negligence of another is imputed to the plaintiff because of the
existence of some relationship with the latter. As the doctrine assumes the
plaintiffs innocence of actual negligence, imputed negligence is best
understood as transferred negligence.
philosophy of individualism. Quite naturally then an individual is generally
held only for his own fault and not for the fault of another. Innocent A is not
usually liable for injuries caused by guilty B. It is a commonplace, however,
that he sometimes is. That is where there is a relationship between A and
B to which the law attaches the consequences of vicarious liability.
Such relationships are those between master and servant, and persons
engaged in a partnership or a joint enterprise. Where the servant, for
instance, acting within the scope of his employment negligently injured C,
the innocent master, A, is liable to C for that injury. This result. is usually
described by identifying master and servant. Qui facit per alium facit per
se. This means that the servant's negligence is imputed to the master.'
The case put does not involve contributory negligence. C has been the
innocent victim of B's fault (else he would be barred of recovery by his own
negligence). But let us shift the case slightly. Suppose that C has
negligently run into and destroyed A's truck, and that A's driver, B, was
also negligent but A was in all respects free from fault. A now sues C for
the damage to his truck. By hypothesis he cannot be barred from recovery
by his own negligence, for there was none. And under general principles
the innocent victim has the choice of suing either or both of two persons
whose wrongs contributed to his injury. The question here is whether A is
to be barred for the negligence of his employee, B. The law today says he
is. Here again the result is described by identifying master and servant and
imputing the latter's negligence to the innocent master. The same result is
reached where B is a partner or a joint entrepreneur of A, and B's
negligence occurs within the scope of such relationship. This result is
generally called imputed contributory negligence.
DOCTRINE OF OSTENSIBLE AGENT
- In cases wherein the employees are at the same time are
independent contractors of the hospital;
- Because of this peculiar situation, they are considered ostensible
agents and therefore, the hospital must be held liable for their
negligent acts. (pathologist, radiologist, anesthesiologist).
DOCTRINE OF APPARENT AUTHORITY [T]he doctrine [under which]
acts and contracts of the agent, as are within the apparent scope of the
authority conferred on him, although no actual authority to do such acts or
to make such contracts has been conferred, bind the principal. The
principals liability, however, is limited only to 3rd persons who have been
led reasonably to believe by the conduct of the principal that such actual
authority exists, although none was given. In other words, apparent
authority is determined only by the acts of the principal and not by the acts
of the agent. [Banate v. Phil. Countryside Rural Bank, Inc., GR 163825,
July 13, 2010].Also called the Holding out theory; or Doctrine of ostensible
agency or Agency by estoppel.
BORROWED SERVANT DOCTRINE
Ordinarily, resident physicians, nurses and other personnel of the
hospital are employees or servants of the hospital;
In some instances, they are under the temporary supervision and
control of another other than their employer while performing their
duties;
By fiction of law, they are deemed borrowed from the hospital by
someone and for any wrongful act committed by them during the
period, their temporary employer must be held liable for the
discharge of their acts and duties;
In the determination whether one is a borrowed servant, it is
necessary that he is not only subjected to the control of another
with regard to the work done and the manner of performing it but
also that the work to be done is for the benefit of the temporary
employer.
CAPTAIN-OF-THE-SHIP DOCTRINE
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is simply a recognition of the postulate
that, as a matter of common knowledge and experience, the very nature of
certain types of occurrences may justify an inference of negligence on the
part of the person who controls the instrumentality causing the injury in the
absence of some explanation by the defendant who is charged with
negligence.[15] It 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.[16] Hence, res ipsa loquitur is applied in conjunction with the doctrine
of common knowledge.
However, much has been said that res ipsa loquitur is not a rule of
substantive law and, as such, does not create or constitute an independent
or separate ground of liability.[17] Instead, it is considered as merely
evidentiary or in the nature of a procedural rule.[18] It is regarded as a
mode of proof, or a mere procedural convenience since it furnishes a
substitute for, and relieves a plaintiff of, the burden of producing specific
proof of negligence.[19] In other words, mere invocation and application of
the doctrine does not dispense with the requirement of proof of negligence.
It is simply a step in the process of such proof, permitting the plaintiff to
present along with the proof of the accident, enough of the attending
circumstances to invoke the doctrine, creating an inference or presumption
of negligence, and to thereby place on the defendant the burden of going
forward with the proof.[20] Still, before resort to the doctrine may be
allowed, the following requisites must be satisfactorily shown:

- This doctrine innunciates liability of the surgeon not only for the
wrongful acts of those who are under his physical control but also
those wherein he has extension of control.
DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITOR
1. The accident is of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence
of someones negligence;
2. It is caused by an instrumentality within the exclusive control of the
defendant or defendants; and

- The thing speaks for itself; nature of the wrongful act
or injury is suggestive of negligence.
- General rule: expert testimony is necessary to prove that
a physician has done a negligent act or that has deviated
from the standard of medical practice.
The thing itself speaks. A doctrine of law that one is
presumed to be negligent if he had exclusive control of
whatever caused the injury even though there is no specific
evidence of an act of negligence, and without negligence
the accident would not have happened.
3. The possibility of contributing conduct which would make the plaintiff
responsible is eliminated.[21]
In the above requisites, the fundamental element is the control of the
instrumentality which caused the damage.[22] Such element of control
must be shown to be within the dominion of the defendant. In order to have
the benefit of the rule, a plaintiff, in addition to proving injury or damage,
must show a situation where it is applicable, and must establish that the
essential elements of the doctrine were present in a particular incident.[23]
Medical malpractice[24]cases do not escape the application of this
doctrine. Thus, res ipsa loquitur has been applied when the circumstances
attendant upon the harm are themselves of such a character as to justify
an inference of negligence as the cause of that harm.[25] The application
of res ipsa loquitur in medical negligence cases presents a question of law
since it is a judicial function to determine whether a certain set of
circumstances does, as a matter of law, permit a given inference.[26]
Although generally, expert medical testimony is relied upon in malpractice
suits to prove that a physician has done a negligent act or that he has
deviated from the standard medical procedure, when the doctrine of res
ipsa loquitur is availed by the plaintiff, the need for expert medical
testimony is dispensed with because the injury itself provides the proof of
negligence.[27] The reason is that the general rule on the necessity of
expert testimony applies only to such matters clearly within the domain of
medical science, and not to matters that are within the common knowledge
of mankind which may be testified to by anyone familiar with the facts.[28]
Ordinarily, only physicians and surgeons of skill and experience are
competent to testify as to whether a patient has been treated or operated
upon with a reasonable degree of skill and care. However, testimony as to
the statements and acts of physicians and surgeons, external
appearances, and manifest conditions which are observable by any one
may be given by non-expert witnesses.[29] 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.[30] 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.[31] When the doctrine is
appropriate, all that the patient must do is prove a nexus between the
particular act or omission complained of and the injury sustained while
under the custody and management of the defendant without need to
produce expert medical testimony to establish the standard of care. Resort
to res ipsa loquitur is allowed because there is no other way, under usual
and ordinary conditions, by which the patient can obtain redress for injury
suffered by him.
Thus, courts of other jurisdictions have applied the doctrine in the following
situations: leaving of a foreign object in the body of the patient after an
operation,[32] injuries sustained on a healthy part of the body which was
not under, or in the area, of treatment,[33] removal of the wrong part of the
body when another part was intended,[34] knocking out a tooth while a
patients jaw was under anesthetic for the removal of his tonsils,[35] and
loss of an eye while the patient plaintiff was under the influence of
anesthetic, during or following an operation for appendicitis,[36] among
others.
Nevertheless, despite the fact that the scope of res ipsa loquitur has been
measurably enlarged, it does not automatically apply to all cases of
medical negligence as to mechanically shift the burden of proof to the
defendant to show that he is not guilty of the ascribed negligence. 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.[37] A distinction must be
made between the failure to secure results, and the occurrence of
something more unusual and not ordinarily found if the service or treatment
rendered followed the usual procedure of those skilled in that particular
practice. It must be conceded that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur can have
no application in a suit against a physician or surgeon which involves the
merits of a diagnosis or of a scientific treatment.[38] The physician or
surgeon is not required at his peril to explain why any particular diagnosis
was not correct, or why any particular scientific treatment did not produce
the desired result.[39] Thus, res ipsa loquitur is not available in a
malpractice suit if the only showing is that the desired result of an operation
or treatment was not accomplished.[40] The real question, therefore, is
whether or not in the process of the operation any extraordinary incident
or unusual event outside of the routine performance occurred which is
beyond the regular scope of customary professional activity in such
operations, which, if unexplained would themselves reasonably speak to
the average man as the negligent cause or causes of the untoward
consequence.[41] If there was such extraneous interventions, the doctrine
of res ipsa loquitur may be utilized and the defendant is called upon to
explain the matter, by evidence of exculpation, if he could. (Ramos vs CA
G.R. No. 124354. December 29, 1999)
Requisites of Res Ipsa Loquitor Doctrine:
1.The accident must be of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in
the absence of someones negligence;
1. It must be caused by an agency or instrumentality within the
exclusive control of the defendant;
2. It must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution
on the part of the plaintiff.
Some cases wherein the Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitor has been
applied:
1. Objects left in the patients body at the time of caesarian
section;
2. Injury to a healthy part of the body;
3. Removal of a wrong part of the body when another part wad
intended;
4. Infection resulting from unsterilized instruments;
5. Failure to take radiographs to diagnose a possible fracture;
Instances where the Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitor does not apply:
1. Where the Doctrine of Calculated Risk is applicable;
When an accepted method of medical treatment involves hazards
which may produce injurious results regardless of the care
exercised by the physician.
2. Bad Result Rule;
3. Honest Errors of judgment as to Appropriate Procedure;
4. Mistake in the Diagnosis.
- In most medical malpractice suits, there is a necessity for a
physician to give his expert medical opinion to prove whether acts
or omissions constitute medical negligence. This doctrine has been
regarded as rule of sympathy to counteract the conspiracy of
silence
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is simply a recognition of the postulate
that, as a matter of common knowledge and experience, the very nature of
certain types of occurrences may justify an inference of negligence on the
part of the person who controls the instrumentality causing the injury in the
absence of some explanation by the defendant who is charged with
negligence.[15] It 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.[16] Hence, res ipsa loquitur is applied in conjunction with the doctrine
of common knowledge.
However, much has been said that res ipsa loquitur is not a rule of
substantive law and, as such, does not create or constitute an independent
or separate ground of liability.[17] Instead, it is considered as merely
evidentiary or in the nature of a procedural rule.[18] It is regarded as a
mode of proof, or a mere procedural convenience since it furnishes a
substitute for, and relieves a plaintiff of, the burden of producing specific
proof of negligence.[19] In other words, mere invocation and application of
the doctrine does not dispense with the requirement of proof of negligence.
It is simply a step in the process of such proof, permitting the plaintiff to
present along with the proof of the accident, enough of the attending
circumstances to invoke the doctrine, creating an inference or presumption
of negligence, and to thereby place on the defendant the burden of going
forward with the proof.[20] Still, before resort to the doctrine may be
allowed, the following requisites must be satisfactorily shown:
1. The accident is of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence
of someones negligence;
2. It is caused by an instrumentality within the exclusive control of the
defendant or defendants; and
3. The possibility of contributing conduct which would make the plaintiff
responsible is eliminated.[21]
In the above requisites, the fundamental element is the control of the
instrumentality which caused the damage.[22] Such element of control
must be shown to be within the dominion of the defendant. In order to have
the benefit of the rule, a plaintiff, in addition to proving injury or damage,
must show a situation where it is applicable, and must establish that the
essential elements of the doctrine were present in a particular incident.[23]
Medical malpractice[24]cases do not escape the application of this
doctrine. Thus, res ipsa loquitur has been applied when the circumstances
attendant upon the harm are themselves of such a character as to justify
an inference of negligence as the cause of that harm.[25] The application
of res ipsa loquitur in medical negligence cases presents a question of law
since it is a judicial function to determine whether a certain set of
circumstances does, as a matter of law, permit a given inference.[26]
Although generally, expert medical testimony is relied upon in malpractice
suits to prove that a physician has done a negligent act or that he has
deviated from the standard medical procedure, when the doctrine of res
ipsa loquitur is availed by the plaintiff, the need for expert medical
testimony is dispensed with because the injury itself provides the proof of
negligence.[27] The reason is that the general rule on the necessity of
expert testimony applies only to such matters clearly within the domain of
medical science, and not to matters that are within the common knowledge
of mankind which may be testified to by anyone familiar with the facts.[28]
Ordinarily, only physicians and surgeons of skill and experience are
competent to testify as to whether a patient has been treated or operated
upon with a reasonable degree of skill and care. However, testimony as to
the statements and acts of physicians and surgeons, external
appearances, and manifest conditions which are observable by any one
may be given by non-expert witnesses.[29] 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.[30] 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.[31] When the doctrine is
appropriate, all that the patient must do is prove a nexus between the
particular act or omission complained of and the injury sustained while
under the custody and management of the defendant without need to
produce expert medical testimony to establish the standard of care. Resort
to res ipsa loquitur is allowed because there is no other way, under usual
and ordinary conditions, by which the patient can obtain redress for injury
suffered by him.
Thus, courts of other jurisdictions have applied the doctrine in the following
situations: leaving of a foreign object in the body of the patient after an
operation,[32] injuries sustained on a healthy part of the body which was
not under, or in the area, of treatment,[33] removal of the wrong part of the
body when another part was intended,[34] knocking out a tooth while a
patients jaw was under anesthetic for the removal of his tonsils,[35] and
loss of an eye while the patient plaintiff was under the influence of
anesthetic, during or following an operation for appendicitis,[36] among
others.
Nevertheless, despite the fact that the scope of res ipsa loquitur has been
measurably enlarged, it does not automatically apply to all cases of
medical negligence as to mechanically shift the burden of proof to the
defendant to show that he is not guilty of the ascribed negligence. 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.[37] A distinction must be
made between the failure to secure results, and the occurrence of
something more unusual and not ordinarily found if the service or treatment
rendered followed the usual procedure of those skilled in that particular
practice. It must be conceded that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur can have
no application in a suit against a physician or surgeon which involves the
merits of a diagnosis or of a scientific treatment.[38] The physician or
surgeon is not required at his peril to explain why any particular diagnosis
was not correct, or why any particular scientific treatment did not produce
the desired result.[39] Thus, res ipsa loquitur is not available in a
malpractice suit if the only showing is that the desired result of an operation
or treatment was not accomplished.[40] The real question, therefore, is
whether or not in the process of the operation any extraordinary incident
or unusual event outside of the routine performance occurred which is
beyond the regular scope of customary professional activity in such
operations, which, if unexplained would themselves reasonably speak to
the average man as the negligent cause or causes of the untoward
consequence.[41] If there was such extraneous interventions, the doctrine
of res ipsa loquitur may be utilized and the defendant is called upon to
explain the matter, by evidence of exculpation, if he could.
DOCTRINE OF ASSUMPTION OF RISK
Predicated upon knowledge and informed consent, anyone who
voluntarily assumes the risk of injury from a known danger, if
injured, is barred from recovery.
violenti non fit injuria, which means that a person who assents
and was injured is not regarded in law to be injured.
Doctrine of assumption of risk. The precept that denotes that a person
who knows and comprehends the peril and voluntarily exposes himself or
herself to it, although not negligent in doing so, is regarded as engaging in
an assumption of the risk and is precluded from a recovery for an injury
ensuing therefrom. Also called Doctrine of volenti non fit injuria.
DOCTRINE OF LAST CLEAR CHANCE
- A physician who has the last clear chance of avoiding damage or
injury but negligently fails to do is liable.
- It implies thought, appreciation, mental direction and lapse of
sufficient time to effectually act upon impulse to save the life or
prevent injury to another.
Doctrine of last clear chance. Also known as the Doctrine of
discovered peril or the Humanitarian doctrine. A doctrine in the law of
torts which states that the contributory negligence of the party injured will
not defeat the claim for damages if it is shown that the defendant might, by
the exercise of reasonable care and prudence, have avoided the
consequences of the negligence of the injured party. In such cases, the
person who had the last clear chance to avoid the mishap is considered in
law solely responsible for the consequences thereof. [Ong v. Metropolitan
Water District, 104 Phil. 405 (1958)]

DOCTRINE OF SUPERVENING NEGLIGENCE Also Doctrine of

discovered peril. The doctrine x x x to the effect that where both parties are
negligent, but the negligent act of one is appreciably later in time than that
of the other, or when it is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence
should be attributed to the incident, the one who had the last clear
opportunity to avoid the impending harm and failed to do so is chargeable
with the consequences thereof. [Picart v. Smith, 37 Phil. 809]. [A]n
antecedent negligence of a person does not preclude the recovery of
damages for supervening negligence of, or bar a defense against the
liability sought by, another if the latter, who had the last fair chance, could
have avoided the impending harm by the exercise of due diligence.
[Pantranco North Express, Inc. v. Baesa, 179 SCRA 384].

DOCTRINE OF FORESEEABILITY

- A physician cannot be held accountable for negligence if the

injury sustained by the patient is on account of unforeseen
conditions but if a physician fails to ascertain the condition of the
patient for want of the requisite skill and training is answerable for
the injury sustained by the patient if injury resulted thereto.
- A physician owes duty of care to all persons who are foreseeably
endangered by his conduct, with respect to the risk which make
the conduct unreasonably dangerous.