Orlando Garcia, Jr. vs. Ranida and Ramon Salvador Essay

Orlando Garcia, Jr. (Network Diagnostics Center) versus Ranida and Ramon Salvador G.R. No. 168512 March 20, 2007 Realities: Respondent Ranida Salvador experienced a clinical assessment at the Community Diagnostics Center (CDC) as an essential for normal business. Garcia, a clinical technologist, led the HBs Ag (Hepatitis B Surface Antigen) test. On October 22, 1993, CDC gave the test outcome demonstrating that Ranida was â€Å"HBs Ag: Reactive.† The outcome bore the name and mark of Garcia as analyst and the elastic stamp mark of Dr. Castro as pathologist. When Ranida presented the test result to Dr. Sto. Domingo, the Company doctor, the last informed her that the discoveries showed that she is experiencing Hepatitis B, a liver sickness. In this way, in view of the clinical report presented by Sto. Domingo, the Company fired Ranida’s work for bombing the physical assessment. It was later verified that there was a blunder in the past assessment and that the respondent was not experiencing Hepatitis B. Respondent was rehired by the organization. ISSUE: Regardless of whether Garcia (CDC) is obligated for harms to the respondents for giving a mistaken HBsAG test result. HELD: The Court held that CDC was careless on the grounds that there was no authorized doctor in CDC as legally necessary. CDC isn't regulated, coordinated and managed by an authorized doctor as legally necessary, however by Ma. Ruby C. Calderon, an authorized Medical Technologist. In the License to Open and Operate a Clinical Laboratory for the years 1993 and 1996 gave by Dr. Juan R. Naã ±agas, M.D., Undersecretary for Health Facilities, Standards and Regulation, respondent appellee Castro was named as the head of CDC. Be that as it may, respondent pathologist isn't the proprietor of the Community Diagnostic Center nor a representative of the equivalent nor the business of its workers. Respondent pathologist goes to the Community Diagnostic Center when and where an issue is alluded to him. Castro’s rare visit to the clinical research center scarcely qualifies as a powerful managerial oversight and command over the exercises in the lab. â€Å"Supervision and control† implies the power to act legitimately at whatever point a particular capacity is depended by law or guideline to a subordinate; direct the exhibition of obligation; limit the commission of acts; survey, favor, overhaul or modifyâ acts and choices of subordinate authorities or units. In addition, Garcia directed the HBsAG trial of respondent Ranida without the management of litigant appellee Castro. In conclusion, the contested HBsAG test result was discharged to respondent Ranida without the approval of litigant appellee Castro.