Case Summary (G.R. No. 165622)
Factual Background
Judge De Leon experienced eye irritation and consulted Dr. Charles Milla, who prescribed "Cortisporin Ophthalmic" and "Ceftin." Using a prescription lacking full doctor details, De Leon purchased medicine at Mercury Drug, where Ganzon handed him the medicine. After application, he felt severe pain and realized he had been given "Cortisporin Otic Solution" (ear drops) instead of the eye drops. Upon confrontation, Ganzon admitted she could not fully read the prescription; no proper apology was made until her supervisor intervened, but Mercury Drug Corporation failed to provide written acknowledgement or apology. De Leon filed suit for damages.
Position of the Parties
Mercury Drug and Ganzon denied negligence, claiming De Leon’s failure to read the label or verify the medicine was the proximate cause. They further argued the prescription was defective, missing the doctor’s name and license number, and that “Cortisporin Ophthalmic” as named did not exist in the Philippine market. Ganzon justified dispensing the only available "Cortisporin Solution." De Leon maintained he relied on their professional duty to dispense the correct medicine due to the specialized nature of pharmaceuticals.
RTC's Decision
The RTC ruled in favor of De Leon, finding Mercury Drug and Ganzon negligent. It concluded that dispensing a prescription drug without a proper prescription and without verifying the exact medicine was negligent. The Court noted that even if De Leon was negligent in not reading the label, Mercury Drug’s negligence was primary. Pursuant to Article 2180 of the Civil Code, it held Mercury Drug liable for its employee’s negligence due to lack of proper supervision.
The RTC awarded De Leon:
- ₱153.25 (value of medicine) as pecuniary damages
- ₱100,000 as moral damages
- ₱300,000 as exemplary damages to serve as a warning to the drug-dispensing industry
- ₱50,000 as attorney’s fees plus litigation expenses
Court of Appeals' Ruling
Mercury Drug and Ganzon appealed, but the Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed the appeal for failure to comply with procedural rules—specifically, the absence of page references to the records in their briefs, which was required under Section 1(f), Rule 50 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The CA denied reconsideration, emphasizing strict adherence to procedural rules is essential to maintain orderly justice.
Assigned Errors on Petition for Review
Mercury Drug and Ganzon challenged the CA’s dismissal on the grounds that:
- The CA erred by dismissing their appeal, citing precedents that permit leniency where there is substantial compliance.
- The CA abused discretion by prioritizing technicalities over substantial justice.
- The CA decision conflicts with other Supreme Court rulings and unfairly prejudices petitioners.
Supreme Court's Analysis on Appeal Dismissal
The Supreme Court acknowledged that dismissal for procedural lapses under Rule 50 is discretionary, not mandatory. The purpose of requiring page references and detailed briefs is to assist courts in reaching just conclusions. When briefs substantially comply by enabling the court to efficiently locate parts of the record, dismissal may be unwarranted.
The Court distinguished this case from precedent cases where dismissals were upheld due to gross non-compliance, noting here the appellants’ briefs contained references to exhibits and transcripts that sufficiently apprised the Court. Thus, strict technicality should not bar substantive adjudication.
Supreme Court's Ruling on Liability
Despite procedural defect arguments, the Supreme Court affirmed the factual findings of negligence by Mercury Drug and Ganzon. The profession of pharmacy demands the highest degree of care and diligence due to its critical public health nature.
Referencing prior jurisprudence, including its own ruling in Mercury Drug Corporation v. Baking, the Court reiterated that dispensing the wrong medicine—even if by "innocent mistake"—constitutes gross negligence. Such errors pose grave risks to human life and public safety and cannot be excused by claimant’s contributory negligence.
Additionally, the Court noted that the pharmacy’s responsibility extends to proper verification and refusal to dispense uncertain or unavailable medicines. Mercury Drug failed to exercise sufficient supervision or caution.
On Moral and Exemplary Damages
The Court found the trial court’s original awards excessive given the facts. Recognizing moral damages compensate for physical suffering, mental anguish, and similar injuries, the Court reduced the moral damages award from ₱100,000 to ₱50,000. Similarly, exemplary damages, intended to serve as a public corrective example, were reduced from ₱300,000 to ₱25,000.
The Court underscored that exemplary damages are justified in
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 165622)
Facts of the Case
- Respondent Raul T. De Leon, then presiding judge of Branch 258, RTC Parañaque, experienced a reddish left eye and difficulty reading on October 17, 1999.
- Upon consulting his doctor friend, Dr. Charles Milla, De Leon was prescribed "Cortisporin Opthalmic" and "Ceftin" for his eye condition.
- The next morning, De Leon bought these medicines from the Betterliving, Parañaque branch of Mercury Drug Store Corporation, presenting his prescription to pharmacist assistant Aurmela Ganzon.
- Ganzon handed over the medicine labeled as "Cortisporin Otic Solution" (ear drops) instead of the prescribed eye drops.
- After applying the drops to his eye with the assistance of his sheriff, De Leon felt searing pain, and rinsed his eye, but discomfort persisted.
- He discovered the mistake and confronted Ganzon, who confessed inability to fully read the prescription; her supervisor apologized, citing lack of stock of the correct medicine.
- De Leon's letter to Mercury Drug's president elicited no substantive reply; instead, salespeople offered no apology.
- Denied a written apology and explanation, De Leon filed a complaint for damages against Mercury Drug and Ganzon.
- Mercury Drug denied negligence, blaming De Leon’s own fault for failing to check the medicine label before use and contending the prescription was invalid for lack of physician details.
- Ganzon admitted to selling the medication based on De Leon’s status as a regular customer and due to product availability.
RTC Decision and Rationale
- The RTC ruled in favor of De Leon, ordering Mercury Drug to pay:
- Php 153.25 for the value of the medicine,
- Php 100,000.00 in moral damages,
- Php 300,000.00 in exemplary damages,
- Php 50,000.00 for attorney’s fees plus litigation expenses.
- The court found the proximate cause was Ganzon’s negligence in dispensing medicine without a proper prescription, failing to carefully read the order, and assuming availability justified substitution.
- Although De Leon could have exercised more diligence by checking the label or instructing his sheriff to do so, Mercury Drug’s negligence was primary.
- The court emphasized that employer liability arises presumptively from an employee's negligence unless rebutted by proof of due diligence.
Court of Appeals Proceedings and Rulings
- Mercury Drug and Ganzon appealed; De Leon moved to dismiss the appeal on procedural grounds.
- The CA granted the motion and dismissed the appeal due to failure of the appellant's brief to comply strictly with Rule 50, Section 1(f) of the Rules of Civil Procedure for lack of page references in their brief.
- The CA underscored that appellate procedural rules are statutory rights and must be followed to assist in achieving justice.
- The CA denied the motion for reconsideration, reaffirming the importance of procedural compliance despite recognizing litigation should not be a game of technicalities.
Issues on Appeal to the Supreme Court
- Whether