ROGELIO NOGALES V.

CAPITOL MEDICAL CENTER

G.R. No. 142625, 19 December 2006

Facts:
Pregnant with her fourth child, Corazon Nogales (Corazon), who
was then 37 years old, was under the exclusive prenatal care of Dr.
Oscar Estrada (Dr. Estrada) beginning on her fourth month of
pregnancy or as early as December 1975. Around midnight of 25 May
1976, Corazon started to experience mild labor pains prompting
Corazon and Rogelio Nogales (Spouses Nogales) to see Dr. Estrada at
his home. After examining Corazon, Dr. Estrada advised her
immediate admission to the Capitol Medical Center (CMC). t 6:13
a.m., Corazon started to experience convulsionsAt 6:22 a.m., Dr.
Estrada, assisted by Dr. Villaflor, applied low forceps to extract
Corazon's baby. In the process, a 1.0 x 2.5 cm. piece of cervical tissue
was allegedly torn.At 6:27 a.m., Corazon began to manifest moderate
vaginal bleeding which rapidly became profuse. Corazon died at 9:15
a.m. The cause of death was uhemorrhage, post partum.

Issue:
Whether or not CMC is vicariously liable for the negligence of Dr.
Estrada.

Ruling:
Private hospitals, hire, fire and exercise real control over their
attending and visiting uconsultantu staff. The basis for holding an
employer solidarily responsible for the negligence of its employee is
found in Article 2180 of the Civil Code which considers a person
accountable not only for his own acts but also for those of others
based on the former's responsibility under a relationship of patria
potestas.

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
uostensibleu agent of the hospital. This exception is also known as the
udoctrine of apparent authorityu.

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. In the
instant case, CMC impliedly held out Dr. Estrada as a member of its
medical staff. Through CMC's acts, CMC clothed Dr. Estrada with
apparent authority thereby leading the Spouses Nogales to believe
that Dr. Estrada was an employee or agent of CMC.

FILCAR TRANSPORT SERVICES V. ESPINAS

GR. No. 174156, 20 June 2012

Facts:
Espinas, while driving, was hit by another car. The other car
escaped from the scene of the incident, but Espinas was able to get its
plate number.

After verifying with the Land Transportation Office, Espinas

learned that the owner of the other car, with plate number UCF-545 is
Filcar.

After sending several letters to Filcar and to its President and

General Manager Carmen Flor,demanding payment for the damages
sustained by his car without response, Espinas filed a complaint for
damages against Filcar and Carmen Flor demanding the amount of
P97,910.00, representing actual damages sustained by his car. Filcar
argued that while it is the registered owner of the car that hit and
bumped Espinas car, the car was assigned to its Corporate Secretary
Atty. Candido Flor, the husband of Carmen Flor. Filcar furtherstated
that when the incident happened, the car was being driven by Atty.
Flors personal driver,Timoteo Floresca.Filcar denied any liability to
Espinas and claimed that the incident was not due to its fault or
negligence since Floresca was not its employee but that of Atty. Flor.
Filcar and Carmen Flor.

Issue:
Whether Filcar, as registered owner of the motor vehicle which
figured in an accident, may be held liable for the damages caused to
Espinas.

Ruling:
Yes. Filcar, as registered owner, is deemed the employer of the
driver, Floresca, and is thus vicariouslyliable under Article 2-3 in
relation with Article 24/ ofthe Civil Code As a general rule, one is
only responsible for his own act or omission.Thus, a person will
generally beheld liable only for the torts committed by himselfand not
by another. The law, however, provides fore5ceptions that an employer
is made vicariously liable for the tort committed by his employee.
Article24/ ofthe Civil Code states6Article 24/. The obligation
imposed by Article 2-3 is demandable not only for one0s own acts
oromissions, but also for those ofpersons for whom one is responsible.
Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees
and household helpers actingwithin the scope oftheir assigned tas7s,
even though the former are not engaged in any business orindustry.

Under Article 2176, in relation with Article 2180, ofthe Civil

Code, an action predicated on an employees act or omission may be
instituted against the employer who is held liable for the negligentact
or omission committed by his employee.It is well settled that in case
ofmotor vehicle mishaps, the registered owner ofthe motor vehicle
isconsidered as the employer ofthe tortfeasor'driver, and is made
primarily liable for the tort committedby the latter under Article 2176,
in relation with Article 2180, ofthe Civil Code.Filcar is not be
permitted to evade its liability for damages by conveniently passing on
the blame toanother party8 in this case, its Corporate Secretary, Atty.
Flor and his alleged driver, Floresca. WHEREFORE, the petition is
DENIED. The decision the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED.
Costsagainst petitioner Filcar Transport Services.