GR 156037; (May, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 156037 ; May 28, 2007
MERCURY DRUG CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. SEBASTIAN M. BAKING, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Sebastian Baking, after a medical check-up, was prescribed Diamicron for his blood sugar. He purchased the medicine from petitioner Mercury Drug Corporation’s Alabang branch. The saleslady, however, misread the prescription and dispensed Dormicum, a potent sleeping tablet, instead. Unaware of the error, Baking took the medication.
On the third day of taking the wrong medicine, Baking fell asleep while driving, causing a vehicular accident. He later discovered the dispensing error when he returned to his physician, Dr. Cesar Sy, who confirmed that he had been given Dormicum instead of Diamicron. Baking subsequently filed a complaint for damages against Mercury Drug.
ISSUE
The primary issues were: (1) whether Mercury Drug was negligent and if such negligence was the proximate cause of the accident; and (2) whether the awards for moral damages, attorney’s fees, and litigation expenses were justified.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of negligence but modified the awarded damages. The Court ruled that Mercury Drug, through its employee, was grossly negligent. The drugstore business is imbued with public interest, requiring the highest degree of care in dispensing medicines. The employee’s failure to verify the prescription against the medicine dispensed constituted a breach of this duty.
On proximate cause, the Court held that the accident was a direct and natural consequence of the negligence. Proximate cause is determined from the facts upon consideration of logic and common sense. The vehicular collision would not have occurred had Baking not been impaired by the erroneously dispensed sleeping tablet. The Court rejected Mercury Drug’s argument that Baking’s own negligence was the proximate cause, finding the chain of causation unbroken.
Under Article 2176 in relation to Article 2180 of the Civil Code, an employer is liable for damages caused by its employee’s negligence acting within the scope of assigned tasks. Mercury Drug failed to rebut the presumption of negligence in the selection or supervision of its employee. However, the Court reduced the moral damages from ₱250,000 to ₱50,000, finding the original award excessive. It also awarded ₱25,000 in exemplary damages to serve as a deterrent but deleted the awards for attorney’s fees and litigation expenses due to the lack of factual and legal justification stated in the body of the decision.