PSI v.

CA
The defendant PSI Professional Services, Inc. (the operator of the hospital) displayed in the lobby of the Medical City Hospital the names and specializations,
qualifications of the physicians associated or accredited by it.

On April 4, 1984, Natividad Agana was rushed to the Medical City General Hospital (Medical City Hospital) because of difficulty of bowel movement and bloody
anal discharge. After a series of medical examinations, Dr. Ampil, petitioner in G.R. No. 127590, diagnosed her to be suffering from "cancer of the sigmoid."(lower
colon)

It is worthy to note that Dr. Ampil and Dr. Fuentes operated on Natividad an anterior resection surgery and hysterectomy on Natividad with the assistance of the
Medical City Hospitals staff, composed of resident doctors, nurses, and interns.

Polymedic General Hospital. While confined there, Dr. Ramon Gutierrez detected the presence of another foreign object in her vagina -- a foul-smelling gauze
measuring 1.5 inches in width which badly infected her vaginal vault. A recto-vaginal fistula had formed in her reproductive organs which forced stool to excrete
through the vagina. Another surgical operation was needed to remedy the damage. Thus, in October 1984, Natividad underwent another surgery.

On November 12, 1984, Natividad and her husband filed with the RTC, a complaint for damages against the Professional Services, Inc. (PSI), owner of the Medical
City Hospital, Dr. Ampil, and Dr. Fuentes, docketed as Civil Case No. Q-43322. They alleged that the latter are liable for negligence for leaving 2 pieces of gauze
inside Natividads body and malpractice for concealing their acts of negligence.

ISSUE: 1. will the case prosper? Even in the absence of employer-employee relationship
2. Is Dr. Fuentes liable pursuant to the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor apply?

1. yes.

Under the doctrine of apparent authority (or the holding out theory; or doctrine of ostensible agency or agency by estoppel)
the principal is bound by the acts of his agent with the apparent authority
(a) which he knowingly permits the agent to assume, or
(b) which he holds to the agent out to the public as possessing

2. no. The thing which causes the injury is not under the control & management of the defendant Dr Fuentes

the requisites for the applicability of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur are:
(1) the occurrence of an injury;
(2) the thing which caused the injury was under the control and management of the defendant;
(3) the occurrence was such that in the ordinary course of things, would not have happened if those who had control or management used proper care; and
(4) the absence of explanation by the defendant. Of the foregoing requisites, the most instrumental is the "control and management of the thing which caused
the injury."15

the element of "control and management of the thing which caused the injury" to be wanting. Hence, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur will not lie.
It was duly established that Dr. Ampil was the lead surgeon during the operation of Natividad. He requested the assistance of Dr. Fuentes only to perform
hysterectomy when he (Dr. Ampil) found that the malignancy in her sigmoid area had spread to her left ovary. Dr. Fuentes performed the surgery and thereafter
reported and showed his work to Dr. Ampil. The latter examined it and finding everything to be in order, allowed Dr. Fuentes to leave the operating room.
Dr. Ampil then resumed operating on Natividad. He was about to finish the procedure when the attending nurses informed him that two pieces of gauze were
missing. A "diligent search" was conducted, but the misplaced gauzes were not found. Dr. Ampil then directed that the incision be closed. During this entire
period, Dr. Fuentes was no longer in the operating room and had, in fact, left the hospital.

Under the "Captain of the Ship" rule, the operating surgeon is the person in complete charge of the surgery room and all personnel connected with the
operation. Their duty is to obey his orders.16 As stated before, Dr. Ampil was the lead surgeon. In other words, he was the "Captain of the Ship." That he
discharged such role is evident from his following conduct: (1) calling Dr. Fuentes to perform a hysterectomy; (2) examining the work of Dr. Fuentes and finding it
in order; (3) granting Dr. Fuentes permission to leave; and (4) ordering the closure of the incision. To our mind, it was this act of ordering the closure of the
incision notwithstanding that two pieces of gauze remained unaccounted for, that caused injury to Natividads body. Clearly, the control and management of the
thing which caused the injury was in the hands of Dr. Ampil, not Dr. Fuentes.
In this jurisdiction, res ipsa loquitur is not a rule of substantive la

1
 PRISCILLA CASTILLO VDA. DE MIJARES, complainant, vs. JUSTICE ONOFRE A. VILLALUZ (Retired),

a sworn complaint for disbarment filed with this Court on June 6, 1995, complainant Judge Priscilla Castillo Vda. de Mijares charged respondent former
justiceOnofre A. Villaluz, a retired Justice of the Court of Appeals, with gross immorality and grave misconduct

judge verano solemnized their marriage in a civil marriage before MCTC of Ramona Cavite.

She learned from Manila RTC Judge Ramon Makasiar, a member of the Bible Group, that he ( Judge Makasiar ) solemnized the marriage between former Justice
Onofre A. Villaluz and a certain Lydia Geraldez long ago.

According to respondent, he entered into subject marriage in an effort to save the complainant from the charge of immorality against her. But, to
repeat: regardless of the intention of respondent in saying I do with complainant before a competent authority, all ingredients of a valid marriage were present.

The nature of the office of an attorney at law requires that he shall be a person of good moral character. This qualification is not only a condition precedent for
admission to the practice of law; its continued possession is also essential for remaining in the practice of law.[6]

Under Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer shall not engage in UDID (unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitfulconduct. The commission
of grossly immoral conduct and deceit are grounds for suspension or disbarment of lawyers.[7]
However, considering that respondent is in the declining years of his life; that his impulsive conduct during some episodes of the investigation reveal a degree of
aberrant reactive behavior probably ascribable to advanced age; and the undeniable fact that he has rendered some years of commendable service in the
judiciary, the Court feels that disbarment would be too harsh a penalty in this peculiar case. Hence, a suspension of two years, as recommended, would suffice as
a punitive but compassionate disciplinary measure.

Mauricio Ulep vs The Legal Clinic

In 1984, The Legal Clinic was formed by Atty. Rogelio Nogales. Its aim, according to Nogales was to move toward specialization and to cater to clients who cannot
afford the services of big law firms. Now, Atty. Mauricio Ulep filed a complaint against The Legal Clinic because of the latters advertisements which contain the
following:

SECRET MARRIAGE?
P560.00 for a valid marriage.
Info on DIVORCE. ABSENCE. ANNULMENT. VISA.
THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC.
Please call: 521-0767; 521-7232; 522-2041
8:30am 6:00pm
7th Flr. Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., Manila
GUAM DIVORCE
DON PARKINSON
An attorney in Guam is giving FREE BOOKS on Guam Divorce through The Legal Clinic beginning Monday to Friday during office hours.
Guam divorce. Annulment of Marriage. Immigration Problems, Visa Ext. Quota/Non-quota Res. & Special Retirees Visa. Declaration of Absence. Remarriage to
Filipina Fiancees. Adoption. Investment in the Phil. US/Foreign Visa for Filipina Spouse/Children.
Call Marivic.
THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC.
7th Flr. Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., Manila nr. US Embassy
Tel. 521-7232, 521-7251, 522-2041, 521-0767

It is also alleged that The Legal Clinic published an article entitled Rx for Legal Problems in Star Week of Philippine Star wherein Nogales stated that they The
Legal Clinic is composed of specialists that can take care of a clients problem no matter how complicated it is even if it is as complicated as the Sharon Cuneta-
Gabby Concepcion situation. He said that he and his staff of lawyers, who, like doctors, are specialists in various fields, can take care of it. The Legal Clinic, Inc.
has specialists in taxation and criminal law, medico-legal problems, labor, litigation and family law. These specialists are backed up by a battery of paralegals,
counselors and attorneys.

As for its advertisement, Nogales said it should be allowed in view of the jurisprudence in the US which now allows it (John Bates vs The State Bar of Arizona). And
that besides, the advertisement is merely making known to the public the services that The Legal Clinic offers.

ISSUE: Whether or not The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law; whether such is allowed; whether or not its advertisement may be allowed.

HELD:
Yes

The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law

however, such practice is not allowed.

The Legal Clinic is composed mainly of paralegals. The services it offered include various legal problems wherein a client may avail of legal services from simple
documentation to complex litigation and corporate undertakings. Most of these services are undoubtedly beyond the domain of paralegals, but rather, are
exclusive functions of lawyers engaged in the practice of law. Under Philippine jurisdiction however, the services being offered by Legal Clinic which constitute
practice of law cannot be performed by paralegals. Only a person duly admitted as a member of the bar and who is in good and regular standing, is entitled to
practice law.
Anent the issue on the validity of the questioned advertisements, theCode of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer in making known his legal services
shall use only true, honest, fair, dignified and objective information or statement of facts. The standards of the legal profession condemn the lawyers

2
advertisement of his talents. A lawyer cannot, without violating the ethics of his profession, advertise his talents or skills as in a manner similar to a merchant
advertising his goods. Further, the advertisements of Legal Clinic seem to promote divorce, secret marriage, bigamous marriage, and other circumventions of law
which their experts can facilitate. Such is highly reprehensible.

The Supreme Court also noted which forms of advertisement are allowed. The best advertising possible for a lawyer is a well-merited reputation for professional
capacity and fidelity to trust, which must be earned as the outcome of character and conduct. Good and efficient service to a client as well as to the community
has a way of publicizing itself and catching public attention. That publicity is a normal by-product of effective service which is right and proper. A good and
reputable lawyer needs no artificial stimulus to generate it and to magnify his success. He easily sees the difference between a normal by-product of able service
and the unwholesome result of propaganda. The Supreme Court also enumerated the following as allowed forms of advertisement:
1. Advertisement in a reputable law list
2. Use of ordinary simple professional card
3. Listing in a phone directory but without designation as to his specialization