Mercury Drug Corporation v. Baking
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On November 25, 1993, Sebastian M. Baking (Respondent) underwent a medical check-up where Dr. Cesar Sy prescribed Diamicron for his blood sugar and Benalize for his triglycerides. Respondent went to Mercury Drug Corporation (Petitioner) to purchase the medicines, but the saleslady misread the prescription for Diamicron as Dormicum, a potent sleeping tablet. Unaware of the error, Respondent took one pill of Dormicum for three consecutive days. On the third day, November 8, 1993, Respondent fell asleep while driving and figured in a vehicular accident, colliding with the car of Josie Peralta. Respondent could not remember the collision due to the sedative effects of the medicine. Procedural History: Respondent filed a complaint for damages against Petitioner in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City. The RTC rendered judgment in favor of Respondent, awarding moral damages, attorney's fees, and litigation expenses. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision in toto and denied Petitioner's motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, arguing that the CA decision was not in accord with law. Petitioner contended that it was not negligent and that the proximate cause of the accident was Respondent's own negligence in driving. Petitioner further challenged the award of moral damages and attorney's fees.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner Mercury Drug was negligent and if such negligence was the proximate cause of the accident. Whether the award of moral damages, exemplary damages, attorney's fees, and litigation expenses is justified.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION: (a) moral damages are reduced to P50,000.00; (b) petitioner is ordered to pay exemplary damages of P25,000.00; and (c) the award of attorney's fees and litigation expenses is DELETED.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court ruled that Petitioner's employee was grossly negligent. Given that the drugstore business is imbued with public interest, the law demands the highest degree of care because a fatal mistake could be a matter of life and death. The employee failed to exercise the caution required in dispensing pharmaceutical products by misreading the prescription. Regarding proximate cause, the Court held that the accident would not have occurred without the potent effects of Dormicum, which caused the Respondent to fall asleep while driving. Under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, the negligence of the employee creates a presumption of negligence on the part of the employer in the selection or supervision of said employee. Petitioner failed to rebut this presumption by proving it exercised the diligence of a good father of a family, thus making it solidarily liable for the damages. On Issue 2: The award of moral damages is justified under Article 2219 of the Civil Code because Respondent established physical suffering and mental anguish resulting from the accident. However, the Court reduced the amount from P250,000.00 to P50,000.00, finding the original award exorbitant. The Court also awarded exemplary damages of P25,000.00 under Article 2229 as a corrective measure for the public good, emphasizing that drugstores must maintain a high level of meticulousness. Conversely, the award for attorney's fees and litigation expenses was deleted because the trial court failed to state the factual or legal basis for such an award in the body of its decision. Following the ruling in Vibram Manufacturing Corporation v. Manila Electric Company, an award for attorney's fees must be justified in the text of the decision and not merely appear in the dispositive portion.
Main Doctrine
The drugstore business is uniquely imbued with public interest, necessitating that employees exercise the highest degree of care and diligence in dispensing medication. Because a mistake in pharmaceutical distribution can be a matter of life and death, any failure to verify a prescription or the dispensing of the wrong medication constitutes gross negligence. Under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, once an employee's negligence is established, a legal presumption arises that the employer was negligent in the selection or supervision of that employee, which can only be rebutted by clear proof of the diligence of a good father of a family.