Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

NOGALES v. CAPITOL MEDICAL CENTER

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 171127 2015-03-11	NOEL CASUMPANG v. NELSON CORTEJO BRION, J.
Despite the absence of employer-employee relationship between SJDH and the petitioning doctors, SJDH is not free from liability.[98]
	GR No. 126297 2010-02-02	PROFESSIONAL SERVICES v. CA CORONA, J.
Second, by accrediting Dr. Ampil and advertising his qualifications, PSI created the public impression that he was its agent.[22] Enrique testified that it was on account of Dr. Ampil's accreditation with PSI that he conferred with said doctor about his wife's (Natividad's) condition.[23] After his meeting with Dr. Ampil, Enrique asked Natividad to personally consult Dr. Ampil.[24] In effect, when Enrigue and Natividad engaged the services of Dr. Ampil, at the back of their minds was that the latter was a staff member of a prestigious hospital. Thus, under the doctrine of apparent authority applied in Nogales, et al. v. Capitol Medical Center, et al.,[25] PSI was liable for the negligence of Dr. Ampil.
	GR No. 176484 2008-11-25	CALAMBA MEDICAL CENTER v. NLRC CARPIO MORALES, J.
Under the "control test," an employment relationship exists between a physician and a hospital if the hospital controls both the means and the details of the process by which the physician is to accomplish his task.[29]
	GR No. 126297 2008-02-11	PROFESSIONAL SERVICES v. CA and NATIVIDAD and ENRIQUE AGANA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In Nograles, et al. v. Capitol Medical Center, et al.,[4] through Mr. Justice Antonio T. Carpio, the Court held:The question now is whether CMC is automatically exempt from liability considering that Dr. Estrada is an independent contractor-physician.