1. IS PSI LIABLE FOR THE NEGLIGENCE OF DR. AMPIL?

2. On January 31, 2007, The Court rendered the decision holding that PSI is liable for the negligence of Dr. Ampil There is an employer-employee relationship between PSI and Dr. Ampil. The Court relied on Ramos v. Court of Appeals, holding that for the purpose of apportioning responsibility in medical negligence cases, an employer-employee relationship in effect exists between hospitals and their attending and visiting physicians.

3. IS PSI LIABLE FOR THE NEGLIGENCE OF DR. AMPIL? PSI’s act of publicly displaying in the lobby of the Medical City the names and specializations of its accredited physicians, including Dr. Ampil, estopped it from denying the existence of an employer-employee relationship between them under the doctrine of ostensible agency or agency by estoppel

4. IS PSI LIABLE FOR THE NEGLIGENCE OF DR. AMPIL? PSI’s failure to supervise Dr. Ampil and its resident physicians and nurses and to take an active step in order to remedy their negligence rendered it directly liable under the doctrine of corporate negligence.