Case Digest (G.R. No. 156037)
Facts:
Mercury Drug Corporation v. Sebastian M. Baking, G.R. No. 156037, March 31, 2008, Supreme Court First Division, Sandoval‑Gutierrez, J., writing for the Court.On November 25, 1993, respondent Sebastian M. Baking consulted Dr. Cesar Sy for a medical check‑up; the next day laboratory tests revealed elevated blood sugar and triglycerides and Dr. Sy prescribed Diamicron (for blood sugar) and Benalize (for triglycerides). Respondent went to Mercury Drug Corporation (Alabang Branch) to fill the prescription but, according to the complaint, a saleslady misread the prescription for Diamicron as a prescription for Dormicum and dispensed Dormicum, a potent sleeping tablet, instead.
Unaware of the error, respondent took one Dormicum tablet on three consecutive occasions (recorded in the decision as November 6–8, 1993). On the third day he fell asleep while driving and collided with the car of one Josie Peralta; he could not recall the collision. Suspecting the medication had affected him, respondent returned to Dr. Sy, who confirmed that the dispensed tablets were Dormicum rather than Diamicron.
Respondent filed a complaint for damages against petitioner in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 80, Quezon City, docketed Civil Case No. Q‑94‑20193, on April 14, 1994. After trial, the RTC rendered judgment on March 18, 1997 in favor of respondent, awarding P250,000.00 as moral damages, P20,000.00 as attorney’s fees and litigation expenses, plus 12% of the cost of suit.
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals. In a Decision dated May 30, 2002 (authored by Associate Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr., concurred in by Justices Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. and Mario L. Guarina III), the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC judgment in toto; petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied in a Resolution dated November 5, 2002. Petitioner then filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 seeking reversal of the ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was petitioner negligent, and if so, was that negligence the proximate cause of respondent’s accident?
- Are the awards of moral damages, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and costs of suit...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)