Title
Mercury Drug Corporation vs. Baking
Case
G.R. No. 156037
Decision Date
May 25, 2007
A pharmacy dispensed the wrong medication, causing a driver to fall asleep and crash. The Supreme Court ruled the pharmacy negligent, holding it liable for damages due to employee error.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 156037)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Transaction and Prescription
    • On November 25, 1993, Sebastian M. Baking (respondent) underwent a medical check-up with Dr. Cesar Sy.
    • After clinical tests including ECG, blood and hematology examinations, and urinalysis, Dr. Sy found elevated blood sugar and triglyceride levels.
    • Dr. Sy prescribed two medicines: Diamicron for blood sugar and Benalize tablets for triglyceride.
  • Purchase and Medication Error
    • Respondent went to Mercury Drug Corporation (petitioner), Alabang Branch, to buy the prescribed medicines.
    • A saleslady misread the prescription for Diamicron as Dormicum, a potent sleeping tablet.
    • Respondent unknowingly bought Dormicum and took one pill on three consecutive days (November 6 to 8, 1993).
  • Accident and Aftermath
    • On November 8, 1993, respondent was involved in a vehicular collision after falling asleep while driving.
    • He could not recall the accident or its impact.
    • Suspecting the medication, respondent consulted Dr. Sy who confirmed the error in the dispensed medicine.
  • Legal Proceedings
    • On April 14, 1994, respondent filed a complaint for damages against petitioner in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 80, Quezon City (Civil Case No. Q-94-20193).
    • The RTC rendered a decision on March 18, 1997, ruling in favor of respondent and ordering damages:
      • P250,000.00 moral damages
      • P20,000.00 attorney’s fees and litigation expenses
      • 12% of cost of suit
    • On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision on May 30, 2002.
    • Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied on November 5, 2002.
    • Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court.

Issues:

  • Whether petitioner was negligent in dispensing the wrong medicine to respondent, and if such negligence was the proximate cause of respondent’s vehicular accident.
  • Whether the award of moral damages, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and cost of suit was proper and justified.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.