G.R. No. 124354 . April 11, 2002.
ROGELIO E. RAMOS, et al., petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, DE LOS SANTOS MEDICAL CENTER, DR. ORLINO HOSAKA and DR. PERFECTA GUTIERREZ, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Erlinda Ramos was scheduled for a cholecystectomy at De Los Santos Medical Center on June 17, 1985, with Dr. Orlino Hosaka as surgeon and Dr. Perfecta Gutierrez, whom Dr. Hosaka recommended, as anesthesiologist. Dr. Hosaka arrived over three hours late for the scheduled operation. During the induction of anesthesia prior to his arrival, Dr. Gutierrez experienced difficulty intubating the patient, noting possible improper tube placement and abdominal distention. The patient exhibited cyanosis. Another anesthesiologist, Dr. Calderon, was called but the patient suffered cerebral anoxia, leading to a comatose state that lasted until her death in 1999.
The trial court found all private respondents negligent and liable for damages. The Court of Appeals reversed, dismissing the complaint and ordering petitioners to pay unpaid medical bills. The Supreme Court, in its December 29, 1999 Decision, reinstated liability, holding Dr. Gutierrez negligent in the intubation and Dr. Hosaka liable under the “captain of the ship” doctrine. The hospital was also held solidarily liable. Private respondents filed motions for reconsideration.

ISSUE

The core issue for reconsideration is whether the Supreme Court erred in holding Dr. Hosaka and Dr. Gutierrez solidarily liable for damages based on the findings of negligence and the application of the “captain of the ship” doctrine.

RULING

The Court denied the motions for reconsideration and affirmed its prior Decision. On Dr. Gutierrez’s liability, the Court found no reason to deviate from its conclusion that she was negligent. Her failure to properly intubate the patient, a procedure fundamental to her specialty, directly caused the anoxic brain injury. The evidence, including the testimony of eyewitness Herminda Cruz and the patient’s manifest physical distress, substantiated this finding. Her defense of “bronchospasm” as the cause was unconvincing and did not absolve her of the initial negligent act.
Regarding Dr. Hosaka, the Court clarified its reliance on the “captain of the ship” doctrine. The doctrine holds the surgeon responsible for all acts occurring in the operating room, including those of assisting personnel, due to his direct control and supervision during the procedure. The Court rejected Dr. Hosaka’s argument that the anesthesiologist was an independent contractor, noting that he recommended Dr. Gutierrez, the procedure was under his overall responsibility, and his tardiness contributed to the compromised setting. His liability was not vicarious but direct, based on his own negligence in failing to exercise the requisite supervision and control. The awards for damages were sustained as commensurate to the catastrophic and prolonged injury suffered by the patient.