MERCURY DRUG CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. SEBASTIAN M. BAKING, RESPONDENT.

Mercury Drug versus Baking

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by Mercury Drug Corporation against Sebastian M. Baking, a customer who was sold the wrong medicine by the drugstore's saleslady. Baking had been prescribed Diamicron for his blood sugar, but the saleslady misread the prescription and sold him Dormicum, a potent sleeping tablet. After taking the wrong medicine for three days, Baking fell asleep while driving and figured in a vehicular accident. He sued for damages on the ground of quasi-delict. The case matters because it settles the standard of care demanded of drugstores, which the Court declares to be a business imbued with public interest, and because it illustrates how the employer's liability under Article 2180 of the Civil Code operates alongside Article 2176, together with the rules on moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees.

Procedural History

On April 14, 1994, Baking filed a complaint for damages against Mercury Drug before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 80 of Quezon City. After hearing, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of Baking, ordering Mercury Drug to pay moral damages, attorney's fees and litigation expenses, plus a share of the cost of the suit. Mercury Drug appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court's judgment in full. Mercury Drug filed a motion for reconsideration, but the Court of Appeals denied it in a Resolution dated November 5, 2002. Mercury Drug then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court through a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

Facts

On November 25, 1993, Sebastian M. Baking went to the clinic of Dr. Cesar Sy for a medical check-up. The following day, after undergoing an ECG, blood and hematology examinations, and urinalysis, Dr. Sy found that Baking's blood sugar and triglyceride were above normal levels. Dr. Sy gave him two prescriptions: Diamicron for his blood sugar and Benalize tablets for his triglyceride.

Baking then went to the Alabang Branch of Mercury Drug Corporation to buy the prescribed medicines. The saleslady misread the prescription for Diamicron as a prescription for Dormicum, a potent sleeping tablet, and that was what she sold to him. Unaware that he had been given the wrong medicine, Baking took one pill of Dormicum on three consecutive days: on November 6 at nine in the evening, on November 7 at six in the morning, and on November 8 at seven thirty in the morning.

On November 8, the third day he took the medicine, Baking figured in a vehicular accident. The car he was driving collided with the car of one Josie Peralta. He had fallen asleep while driving, and he could not remember anything about the collision nor feel its impact. Suspecting that the tablet might have affected his physical and mental state, he returned to Dr. Sy's clinic. Upon being shown the medicine, Dr. Sy was shocked to find that what had been sold was Dormicum instead of the prescribed Diamicron.

Issues

• Whether or not Mercury Drug was negligent, and if so, whether such negligence was the proximate cause of Baking's accident.
• Whether or not the award of moral damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and cost of the suit is justified.

Applicable Provisions

Article 2176 of the New Civil Code provides:

Article 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.

This is the foundation of Baking's claim, requiring damage, fault or negligence, and a connection of cause and effect between them.

Article 2180 of the same Code provides:

Article 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible. The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on the occasion of their functions. Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry. The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned prove that they observed the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage.

This makes Mercury Drug liable for the negligent act of its saleslady unless it proves that it observed the diligence of a good father of a family in her selection and supervision.

Article 2219 of the Civil Code, cited by the Court on moral damages, provides in part:

Article 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases: (1) A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries; (2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries; (3) Seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts; (4) Adultery or concubinage; (5) Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest; (6) Illegal search; (7) Libel, slander or any other form of defamation; (8) Malicious prosecution; (9) Acts mentioned in article 309; (10) Acts and actions referred to in articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, and 35.

This is the basis for awarding moral damages to Baking, whose injury arose from a quasi-delict causing physical injuries.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that Mercury Drug was negligent and that its negligence was the proximate cause of the accident. The drugstore business is imbued with public interest, and its employees must exercise the highest degree of care and diligence in selling medicines, because a fatal mistake could mean life or death for a buying patient. The saleslady should have verified whether the medicine she gave was the one prescribed, and the care required must be commensurate with the danger involved. On proximate cause, the Court defined it as any cause that produces injury in a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, such that the result would not have occurred otherwise. Here, the accident could not have occurred had the employee been careful in reading the prescription, and without the potent effects of Dormicum, it was unlikely that Baking would have fallen asleep while driving.

The Court also held Mercury Drug solidarily liable as employer under Article 2180. When an injury is caused by the negligence of an employee, a presumption arises that the employer was negligent in the selection or supervision of that employee, and the employer may rebut it only by a clear showing that it exercised the care and diligence of a good father of a family. Mercury Drug failed to prove such diligence.

On the second issue, the Court held that moral damages were in order, since Baking adequately established mental anguish and anxiety resulting from the accident. But there is no hard-and-fast rule for the amount, which must be commensurate to the loss or injury suffered, and the Court found the amount awarded by the trial court exorbitant, reducing it accordingly. The Court additionally awarded exemplary damages by way of example or correction for the public good, given the sensitive nature of the drugstore business and the need for meticulousness. As to attorney's fees and litigation expenses, the Court held that the grounds for the award must be set forth in the decision itself, and since the trial court's decision gave no basis, the award had to be deleted.

Doctrine

• The drugstore business is imbued with public interest, and its employees must exercise the highest degree of care and diligence in dispensing medicines, the care required being commensurate with the danger involved.
• To sustain a claim under Article 2176, three requisites must concur: damage suffered by the plaintiff, fault or negligence of the defendant, and a connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence and the damage.
• Proximate cause is any cause that produces injury in a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, such that the result would not have occurred otherwise.
• Under Article 2180, the employer of a negligent employee is liable for the damages caused by the latter, and a presumption of negligence on the part of the employer arises, rebuttable only by a clear showing of the diligence of a good father of a family in selection and supervision.
• Moral damages must be commensurate to the loss or injury suffered, and exemplary damages may be awarded by way of example or correction for the public good where the business is affected with public interest.
• Attorney's fees and litigation expenses must have their grounds stated in the text of the decision, not in the dispositive portion only; otherwise, the award is deleted.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals with modification: moral damages were reduced from 250,000 pesos to 50,000 pesos, exemplary damages of 25,000 pesos were awarded, and the award of attorney's fees and litigation expenses was deleted, with costs against Mercury Drug.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that the drugstore business is imbued with public interest, so its employees must exercise the highest degree of care in dispensing medicines, and the employer is solidarily liable under Article 2180 absent proof of the diligence of a good father of a family. Examiners like to use this case on quasi-delict, proximate cause, employer liability, and the rule that attorney's fees must be justified in the body of the decision.