Case Summary (G.R. No. 156037)
Issues Presented
- Whether Mercury Drug Corporation was negligent in dispensing the wrong medication, 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 costs of suit was proper.
Legal Framework and Negligence Analysis
Article 2176 of the New Civil Code mandates liability for damages caused by fault or negligence, particularly under quasi-delict where no contractual relationship exists. To establish liability, there must be: (a) damage to the plaintiff; (b) defendant’s fault or negligence; and (c) a causal link between the negligence and damages.
The Court recognized that the respondent indisputably suffered damage. The drugstore business implicates public interest, requiring utmost care in handling medicines. The employee’s misreading of the prescription constituted gross negligence, especially given the potential life-threatening consequences of dispensing a powerful sedative in place of medication for blood sugar regulation. This breach of duty was not excused, as the employee failed to verify the medicine before dispensing.
Proximate Cause Determination
Petitioner argued that respondent’s own negligence in driving caused the accident. However, proximate cause includes any cause producing injury in an unbroken, natural sequence and established through logic, common sense, and policy. Here, the vehicular accident was directly attributable to the ingestion of Dormicum, an effect of the petitioner’s employee’s negligence. Without the erroneous dispensing, the respondent would unlikely have fallen asleep while driving, causing the collision.
Employer Liability under Article 2180
Article 2180 extends liability to employers for damages caused by employees acting within their work scope, presuming negligence in selection or supervision unless the employer proves due diligence akin to a “good father of a family.” Mercury Drug Corporation failed to rebut this presumption, leading to its liability for its employee’s negligence.
Award of Moral Damages
Moral damages are warranted when wrongful acts cause physical suffering, mental anguish, or similar injuries. The respondent demonstrated mental anguish and anxiety linked to the accident pursuant to Article 2219 of the Civil Code and established factual basis for moral damages.
While there is no fixed metric for moral damages, the amount must be reasonable and proportional. The Court found the trial court’s award of P250,000 excessive under the circumstances and reduced it to P50,000.
Exemplary Damages
In line with Article 2229, exemplary damages were awarded to serve as a corrective and deterrent measure. Due to the drugstore’s public service nature requiring high care standards, the Court imposed exemplary damages of P25,000 to emphasize the need for diligence and accountability.
Attorney’s Fees and Litigation Expenses
The trial court awarded attorney’s fees and litigation expenses but failed to expressly state the legal basis in its decision, violating established procedural requirements. Accordin
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 156037)
Background and Case Facts
- On November 25, 1993, respondent Sebastian M. Baking underwent medical examination at the clinic of Dr. Cesar Sy.
- Tests revealed elevated blood sugar and triglyceride levels; Dr. Sy prescribed Diamicron for blood sugar and Benalize for triglyceride.
- Respondent procured medicines at Mercury Drug Corporation’s Alabang branch.
- A drugstore saleslady misread the prescription and dispensed Dormicum—a potent sleeping pill—instead of Diamicron.
- Unaware of the mistake, respondent took one Dormicum pill on three consecutive occasions (November 6, 7, and 8, 1993).
- On the third day, respondent fell asleep while driving, leading to a vehicular collision with another car.
- Respondent could not recall the accident and suspected the medication’s influence.
- Returning to Dr. Sy and comparing medicines confirmed the erroneous dispensation of Dormicum.
- Respondent filed a damages suit against Mercury Drug Corporation with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Quezon City on April 14, 1994.
RTC and Court of Appeals Proceedings
- The trial court found for respondent in a decision dated March 18, 1997, awarding P250,000 as moral damages, P20,000 as attorney’s fees and litigation expenses, plus 12% of the suit’s cost.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's decision in its entirety.
- Mercury Drug Corporation filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the Court of Appeals on November 5, 2002.
- The petitioner then elevated the case to the Supreme Court via Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
Issues Presented
- Whether petitioner, Mercury Drug Corporation, was negligent in dispensing the wrong medicine.
- Whether such negligence was the proximate cause of respondent’s vehicular accident.
- Whether the awards of moral damages, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and costs of suit were justified.
Legal Framework and Doctrine on Negligence and Quasi-Delict (Art. 2176, New Civil Code)
- Article 2176 establishes liability for damages caused by fault or negligence, mandating three essential requisites:
- Damage suffered by the plaintiff.
- Fault or negligence of the defendant.
- The connection of cause and effect between negligence and damage.
- It is undisputed respondent incurred damages.
- The law requires drugstores, given their public interest, to exercise utmost care and diligence in dispensing medicines.
- Negligence is factual and was established by RTC and Court of Appeals finding the saleslady’s gross negligence in misreading the prescription and dispensing Dormicum.
- The employee failed