Mercury Drug v. Baking
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Sebastian M. Baking was prescribed Diamicron and Benalize tablets by his physician, Dr. Cesar Sy, for elevated blood sugar and triglyceride levels. Upon visiting petitioner Mercury Drug Corporation to fill the prescription, the saleslady mistakenly dispensed Dormicum, a potent sleeping tablet, instead of Diamicron. Unaware of the error, respondent took the Dormicum for three consecutive days. On the third day, while driving, respondent fell asleep due to the medication's effects and consequently figured in a vehicular accident with another vehicle. Procedural History: Following the accident, respondent Baking filed a complaint for damages against Mercury Drug Corporation with the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC ruled in favor of Baking, ordering Mercury Drug to pay moral damages and attorney's fees. Mercury Drug appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA affirmed the RTC's judgment in its entirety. Mercury Drug then filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the CA. This led to the present petition before the Supreme Court. The Petition: Petitioner Mercury Drug Corporation filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, assailing the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals. Petitioner contends that the appellate court's decision is not in accordance with law or prevailing jurisprudence. The core arguments revolve around whether Mercury Drug was negligent, if this negligence was the proximate cause of the accident, and the justification for the awarded damages. The petition seeks to overturn the findings of the lower courts regarding liability and damages.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner was negligent, and if so, whether such negligence was the proximate cause of respondent’s accident. Whether the award of moral damages, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and cost of the suit is justified.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the challenged Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals with modification. The award of moral damages was reduced from ₱250,000.00 to ₱50,000.00. Petitioner was ordered to pay respondent exemplary damages in the amount of ₱25,000.00. The award of attorney's fees and litigation expenses was deleted.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of negligence and proximate cause: The Court held that the drugstore business is imbued with public interest, requiring the highest degree of care and diligence from its employees. Petitioner's employee was found to be grossly negligent in dispensing Dormicum instead of the prescribed Diamicron. This negligence was the proximate cause of the vehicular accident, as the potent effects of the sleeping tablet caused respondent to fall asleep while driving. The Court disagreed with petitioner's contention that respondent's negligence in driving was the proximate cause, emphasizing that the accident would not have occurred had the prescription been read correctly. The Court applied Article 2176 of the Civil Code, requiring damage, fault or negligence, and a connection of cause and effect between the fault and the damage. It also invoked Article 2180, establishing the employer's liability for the acts of their employees acting within the scope of their functions, unless the employer proves they exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in selection and supervision, which petitioner failed to do. On the award of moral damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and cost of the suit: The Court affirmed the award of moral damages, recognizing that respondent suffered mental anguish and anxiety due to the accident caused by petitioner's negligence. However, it found the original award of ₱250,000.00 to be exorbitant and reduced it to ₱50,000.00, stating that moral damages must be commensurate to the loss or injury suffered. The Court also awarded exemplary damages of ₱25,000.00, citing Article 2229 of the Civil Code, to serve as an example or correction for the public good, given the sensitive nature of the drugstore business and the need for utmost diligence. Regarding attorney's fees and litigation expenses, the Court deleted the award because the trial court's decision did not provide a basis for it, adhering to the rule that such awards must be stated in the body of the decision, not just the dispositive portion.
Main Doctrine
A drugstore business is imbued with public interest, requiring the highest degree of care and diligence in dispensing medicines. Failure to exercise such care, resulting in damage, constitutes negligence under Article 2176 of the Civil Code, making the employer liable under Article 2180.