G.R. No. 210088 - Tordesillas vs. Puno

Respondent Raul T. De Leon was the presiding judge of Branch 258, Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Parañaque.
On October 17, 1999, De Leon noticed redness and irritation in his left eye, accompanied by difficulty in reading.
That evening, he dined with Dr. Charles Milla, a doctor friend who had recently arrived from abroad, and consulted him regarding his eye condition.
Dr. Milla prescribed two medicines: "Cortisporin Ophthalmic" (eye drops) and "Ceftin."

The next morning, De Leon went to the Betterliving, Parañaque branch of Mercury Drug Store Corporation to buy the prescribed medicines.
He presented the prescription to Aurmela Ganzon, a pharmacist assistant, and received the medicine she handed to him after paying for it.

Back at his chambers, De Leon had his sheriff apply 2-3 drops of the medicine to his left eye as instructed.
Instead of relief, De Leon experienced searing pain. He immediately rinsed his eye with water but the pain persisted.
De Leon then discovered that the medicine given was "Cortisporin Otic Solution" (ear drops), not the prescribed "Cortisporin Ophthalmic" (eye drops).
De Leon returned to the same Mercury Drug branch with his eye still red and teary to confront Ganzon.

Ganzon did not apologize and admitted inability to fully read the prescription.
Her supervisor apologized and informed De Leon that the pharmacy had no stock of the needed "Cortisporin Ophthalmic."
De Leon wrote a letter to Mercury Drug’s president, Ms. Vivian K. Askuna, which went unanswered.
Two salespersons visited De Leon’s office, stating their supervisor was busy, and did not provide any written apology or explanation.

De Leon filed a complaint for damages against Mercury Drug and Ganzon.
Mercury Drug denied negligence, arguing that De Leon was the proximate cause of his own injury for failing to check the medicine’s label before use.
They also claimed that there is no medicine known as "Cortisporin Ophthalmic" in the Philippine market and that the prescription De Leon presented was inadequate, lacking doctor's name and license number.
Ganzon admitted that she dispensed the medicine because De Leon was a regular customer, despite the incomplete prescription.

On April 30, 2003, the RTC ruled in favor of De Leon and found Mercury Drug and Ganzon negligent.
The RTC awarded Php 153.25 for pecuniary loss (value of the medicine), Php 100,000.00 as moral damages, Php 300,000.00 as exemplary damages, and Php 50,000.00 for attorney’s fees plus litigation expenses.
The RTC emphasized the high degree of discretion required in dispensing medicine and found Ganzon negligent for dispensing without proper prescription and failing to verify the medication fully.

Mercury Drug and Ganzon appealed but the CA dismissed the appeal due to procedural defects - failure to include page references to the records in their briefs contrary to Section 1(f), Rule 50 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
The CA denied their motion for reconsideration, reiterating the importance of procedural rules in appeals and the grounds for dismissal.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the appeal of Mercury Drug and Ganzon based on procedural grounds despite substantial compliance with the Rules on Appeals.
Whether Mercury Drug and Ganzon were negligent in dispensing the wrong medicine to De Leon, thus liable for damages.
Whether the awards for moral and exemplary damages were proper or excessive.