THE ART OF CASE DIGEST Elements of Case Digest Title and Citation Facts of the Case Issues Decision/s

on/s [Holding/s] Reasoning [Rationale] Title The title of the case shows who is opposing whom. The name of the person who initiated legal action in that particular court will always appear first. Examples People vs. De Leon P.L.D.T. vs. Court of Appeals Citation This tells how to locate the report of the case in the appropriate case reporter. Examples G.R. No. 562719, March 30, 2002 258 SCRA 162 104 Phil 988 Facts of the Case Includes summary of the pertinent facts and legal points raised in the case. It will show the nature of the litigation: who sued whom, based on what occurrences, and what happened in the lower court or courts. The facts are often conveniently summarized at the beginning of the court's published opinion. Sometimes, the best statement of the facts will be found in a dissenting or concurring opinion. WARNING: Judges are not above being selective about the facts they emphasize. Elements A one-sentence description of the nature of the case, to serve as an introduction. A summary of the complaint or information plus relevant evidence and arguments presented in court to explain who did what to whom and why the case was thought to involve illegal conduct. A summary of actions taken by lower courts, for example, defendant convicted; conviction upheld by appellate court. Example PROFESSIONAL SERVICES INC. vs. NATIVIDAD AND ENRIQUE AGANA GR No. 126297, 31 January 2007 Facts of the Case Natividad Agana was rushed to the Medical City General Hospital because of difficulty of bowel movement and bloody anal discharge. After series of examinations, Dr. Miguel Ampil diagnosed her of having cancer of the sigmoid. Consequently, Dr. Ampil

performed a surgery on Natividad where he discovered that the cancer had spread to her ovary which required that a certain portion of it be removed. Enriique, Natividads husband, gave consent to Dr. Juan Fuentes to perform the hysterectomy. After the procedure, Dr. Ampil took over to complete the operation and close the incision. In the Record of Operation, the nurses entered the remarks: sponge count lacking 2 and announced to surgeon searched (sic) done but to no avail continue for closure. Natividad was released from the hospital a few days later. A couple of days after that, she experienced excruciating pain in her anal region. When reported to Drs. Ampil and Fuentes, the doctors only told her that such is a natural consequence of the surgery. Months after the procedures, a 1.5-inch gauze was found protruding in her vagina. It was removed by Dr. Ampil with the assurance that the pain will vanish. But it did not. Natividad sought treatment at Polymedic General Hospital. She was attended by Dr. Gutierrez who detected another 1.5-inch gauze causing her infection in her vaginal vault. Another surgical operation was needed to remedy the damage. Natividad filed a case with RTC Branch 96 in Quezon City for negligence against Drs. Ampil and Fuentes and Professional Services Inc. (PSI), owner of Medical City. An administrative complaint was likewise filed with the Professional Regulatory Commission against the two doctors. During the pendency of the cases, Natividad died. Trial court rendered a decision against Drs. Ampil and Fuentes and PSI. Appeal was filed. The Court of Appeals (CA) exonerated Dr. Fuentes from liability. Issues The issues or questions of law raised by the facts peculiar to the case are often stated explicitly by the court. When noting the issues, it may help to phrase them in terms of questions that can be answered with a precise "yes" or "no." More students misread cases because they fail to see the issues in terms of the applicable law or judicial doctrine than for any other reason. There is no substitute for taking the time to frame carefully the questions, in order that they actually incorporate the key provisions of the law in terms capable of being given precise answers. Issues The same case may be used by instructors for different purposes, so identify those issues in the case which are of central importance to the topic under discussion in class. Example ISSUES: 1.Whether the CA erred in holding Dr. Ampil liable for negligence and malpractice 2.Whether the CA erred in absolving Dr. Fuentes of any liability 3.Whether PSI may be held solidarily liable for the negligence of Dr. Ampil Decisions The decision, or holding, is the court's answer to a question presented to it for answer by the parties involved or raised by the court itself. If the issues have been drawn precisely, the holdings can be stated in simple "yes" or "no" answers or in short statements taken from the language used by the court. Reasoning The reasoning, or rationale, is the chain of argument which led the judges in either a majority or a dissenting opinion to rule as they did.

In capsulizing the reasoning of the court, it should always include an application of the general rule or rules of law to the specific facts of the case. At the end, there should be a short indication of the disposition or procedural resolution of the case (e.g., Decision of the trial court for Petitioner reversed). Example 1.The CA did not err in holding Dr. Ampil liable of negligence. The Court held that the elements to establish liability are duty, breach, injury and proximate causation. As the lead surgeon, Dr. Ampil had the duty to remove all foreign objects, such as gauzes, from Natividads body before closure of the incision. When he failed to do so, it was his duty to inform Natividad about it. Dr. Ampil breached both duties. Such breach caused injury to Natividad, necessitating her further examination and another surgery. That Dr. Ampils negligence is the proximate cause of Natividads injury could be traced from his act of closing the incision despite the information given by the attending nurses that two pieces of gauze were still missing. 2. The CA did not err in absolving Dr. Fuentes from liability. 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. As stated previousy, Dr. Ampil was the lead surgeon. In other words, he was the Captain of the Ship. Clearly, the control and management of the thing which caused the injury was in the hands of Dr. Ampil, not Dr. Fuentes. 3. PSI is directly and solidarily liable with Dr. Ampil. Under our jurisdiction, hospitals and their attending physicians have an existing employeremployee relationship from which their liability stem out. Its liability is also anchored upon the agency principle of apparent authority or agency by estoppel and the doctrine of corporate negligence. By publicly displaying in the lobby of the Medical City Hospital the names and specializations of the physicians associated or accredited by PSI, including those of Dr. Ampil and Dr. Fuentes, it is estopped from passing all the blame to the physicians whose names it proudly paraded in the public directory leading the public to believe that it vouched for their skill and competence. PSI is directly and solidarily liable with Dr. Ampil. Under our jurisdiction, hospitals and their attending physicians have an existing employeremployee relationship from which their liability stem out. Its liability is also anchored upon the agency principle of apparent authority or agency by estoppel and the doctrine of corporate negligence. By publicly displaying in the lobby of the Medical City Hospital the names and specializations of the physicians associated or accredited by PSI, including those of Dr. Ampil and Dr. Fuentes, it is estopped from passing all the blame to the physicians whose names it proudly paraded in the public directory leading the public to believe that it vouched for their skill and competence.