You are on page 1of 6

Issues and Holding

Heirs of Completo v. Albayda, Jr.


1. WON CA erred in finding that Completo was the one who caused the
Heirs of Redentor Completo, and Elpidio Abiad v. Sgt. Amando Albayda, Jr.
collision. NO
2010 / Nachura [Negilgence > Standard of conduct > Special circumstance]
2. WON Abiad failed to prove that he observed the diligence of a good father
of the family. YES
Facts 3. WON the award of moral and temperate damages and attorney's fees for
Albayda is a Master Sergeant of the PH Air Force, and Completo was the taxi driver of a Albayda had no basis. NO / NO / YES
Toyota Corolla which was owned by Abiad. Albayda was riding a bike on his way to the office, Ratio
when Completo's taxi bumped and sideswept him, causing serious physical injuries. He On Negligence
[Albayda] was brought to the PH Air Force General Hospital, but he was transferred to the It is a rule in negligence suits that the plaintiff has the burden of proving by a
AFP Medical Center because he sustained a fracture and there was no orthopedic doctor preponderance of evidence the motorist's breach in his duty of care owed to the
available in the first hospital. He was confined from 27 Aug 1997 to 11 Feb 1998, and again plaintiff, that the motorist was negligent in failing to exercise the diligence required to avoid
in 23 Feb to 22 Mar 1998 [approx. 7 months]. injury to the plaintiff, and that such negligence was the proximate cause of the injury suffered.
Conciliation before the barangay failed, so Albayda filed a complaint for physical injuries NCC 2176 quoted, and said that the question of the motorist's negligence is a question of
through reckless imprudence against Completo before the Office of the City Prosecutor of fact. Usually, more will be required of a motorist [25mi/hr = 37ft/sec] than a bicyclist [10mi/hr
Pasay. Completo filed a counter-charge of damage to property through reckless imprudence = 15ft/sec] in discharging the duty of care because of the physical advantages the former has
against Albayda. The Office of the City Prosecutor recommended the filing of an information over the latter.
for Albayda's complaint, and Completo's complaint [against Albayda] was dismissed. Albayda
manifested his reservation to file a separate civil action for damages against Completo and It was proven by a preponderance of evidence that Completo failed to exercise reasonable
Abiad. diligence.
Albayda alleged that Completo's negligence is the proximate cause of the incident. He
 He was overspeeding at the time he hit Albayda's bicycle; he did not slow down even
demanded the following damages and their respective amounts: Actual damages -
when he approached the intersection
276,550; Moral damages - 600,000; Exemplary damages - 200,000; Attorney's fees - 25,000
+ 1,000 per court appearance.  Such negligence was the sole and proximate cause of the injuries sustained by
On the other hand, Completo alleged that he was carefully driving the taxicab when he Albayda
heard a strange sound from the taxicab's rear right side. He found Albayda lying on the road,  It was proven that Albayda had the right of way since he reached the intersection
holding his left leg, so he brought Albayda to PH Air Force General Hospital. Completo ahead of Completo
asserted that he was an experienced driver, and that he already reduced his speed to 20km
even before reaching the intersection. In contrast, Albayda rode his bicycle at high speed, NCC 2180 cited - obligation imposed by NCC 2176 is demandable also for those persons for
causing him to lose control of the bicycle. Completo said that Albayda had no cause of action. whom one is responsible. Employers are liable for damage caused by employees, but the
Several people testified for each side, but here are some notes on the testimony of the responsibility ceases upon proof that employers observed the diligence of the good father of
owner of the taxi driver, Abiad. Abiad said that aside from being a soldier, he also held the family in the selection and supervision of employees. The burden of proof is on the
franchises of taxicabs and passenger jeepneys, and being a taxicab operator, he would wake employer. The responsibility of two or more persons who are liable for QD is
up early to personally check the taxicabs. When Completo applied as a taxicab driver, Abiad solidary. The employer's civil liability for his employee's negligent acts is also primary
required him to show his bio-data, NBI clearance, and driver's license. Completo never figured and direct, owing to his own negligence in selecting and supervising them, and this liability
in a vehicular accident since he was employed, and according to Abiad, he [Completo] was a attaches even if the employer is not in the vehicle at the time of collision.
good driver and good man. In the selection of employees, employers are required to examine them as to their
RTC rendered judgment in favor of Albayda, and the defendants are ordered to pay actual qualifications, experience, and service records. With respect to supervision, employers
[46k] and moral [400k] damages, and attorney's fees [25k]. Upon appeal at the CA, the court should formulate SOPs and monitor their implementation, and impose disciplinary measures
affirmed RTC's decision with modifications [no more actual damages; awarded temperate for breaches. To establish these factors in a trial involving the issue of vicarious
damages [40k]; moral damages only 200k; Completo and Abiad are solidarily liable to pay [secondary] liability, employers must submit concrete proof, including documentary
Albayda; added legal interest]. evidence.

ABIAD'S EVIDENCE CONSISTED ENTIRELY OF TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE, AND THIS


IS INSUFFICIENT TO OVERCOME THE LEGAL PRESUMPTION THAT HE WAS
NEGLIGENT IN THE SELECTION AND SUPERVISION OF COMPLETO.
1
cap with which he was amusing himself. The series of experiments made by him in his attempt
On Damages to produce an explosion admit of no other explanation. His attempt to discharge the cap by
CA rightfully deleted the award of actual damages because Albayda failed to present the use of electricity, followed by his efforts to explode it with a stone or a hammer, and the
documentary evidence to establish the amount incurred. Temperate damages may be final success of his endeavors brought about by the applications of a match to the contents
recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount of the cap, show clearly that he knew what he was about. Nor can there be any reasonable
cannot be proved with certainty. Moral damages are awarded in QDs causing physical doubt that he had reason to anticipate that the explosion might be dangerous. “The just thing
injuries, so the award is proper. The award of attorney's fees is deleted for failure to prove
is that a man should suffer the damage which comes to him through his own fault, and that
that petitioners acted in bad faith in refusing to satisfy respondent's just and valid claim.
he cannot demand reparation therefor from another.”

JARCO MARKETING CO. V. CA


TAYLOR VS. MANILA RAILROAD
Facts:
David Taylor was a 15 year old boy who spent time as a cabin boy at sea; he was also able
to learn some principles of mechanical engineering and mechanical drawing from his dad’s Petitioner is the owner of Syvel's Department Store, Makati City. Petitioners Leonardo Kong,
office (his dad was a mechanical engineer); he was also employed as a mechanical draftsman Jose Tiope and Elisa Panelo are the store's branch manager, operations manager, and
earning P2.50 a day – all said, Taylor was mature well beyond his age. supervisor, respectively. Private respondents Conrado and Criselda Aguilar are spouses and
the parents of Zhieneth Aguilar.
One day in 1905, he and another boy entered into the premises of Manila Electric power plant
where they found 20-30 blasting caps which they took home. In an effort to explode the said On May 9, 1983, Criselda and Zhieneth were at the department store. Criselda was signing
caps, Taylor experimented until he succeeded in opening the caps and then he lighted it using her credit card slip when she heard a loud thud. She looked behind her and beheld her
a match which resulted to the explosion of the caps causing severe injuries to his companion daughter pinned beneath the gift-wrapping counter structure. She was crying and shouting
and to Taylor losing one eye. for help. He was brought to Makati Medical Center, where she died after 14 days. She was 6
years old.
Taylor sued Manila Electric alleging that because the company left the caps exposed to
children, they are liable for damages due to the company’s negligence. Private respondents demanded upon petitioners the reimbursement of the hospitalization,
ISSUE: Whether or not Manila Electric is liable for damages. medical bills and wake and funeral expenses which they had incurred. Petitioners refused to
pay. Consequently, private respondents filed a complaint for damages wherein they sought
HELD: No. The SC reiterated the elements of quasi delict as follows: the payment of P157,522.86 for actual damages, P300,000 for moral damages, P20,000 for
attorney's fees and an unspecified amount for loss of income and exemplary damages. The
(1) Damages to the plaintiff. trial court dismissed the complaint, ruling that the proximate cause of the fall of the counter
was Zhieneth’s act of clinging to it. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial
(2) Negligence by act or omission of which defendant personally, or some person for whose
court. It found that petitioners were negligent in maintaining a structurally dangerous counter.
acts it must respond, was guilty.
The counter was defective, unstable and dangerous. It also ruled that the child was absolutely
(3) The connection of cause and effect between the negligence and the damage. incapable of negligence or tort. Petitioners now seek for the reversal of this decision.

In the case at bar, it is true that Manila Electric has been negligent in disposing off the caps Issues:
which they used for the power plant, and that said caps caused damages to Taylor. However,
(1) Whether the death of ZHIENETH was accidental or attributable to negligence
the causal connection between the company’s negligence and the injuries sustained by Taylor
is absent. It is in fact the direct acts of Taylor which led to the explosion of the caps as he (2) In case of a finding of negligence, whether the same was attributable to private
even, in various experiments and in multiple attempts, tried to explode the caps. It is from respondents for maintaining a defective counter or to CRISELDA and ZHIENETH for failing
said acts that led to the explosion and hence the injuries. to exercise due and reasonable care while inside the store premises
Taylor at the time of the accident was well-grown youth of 15, more mature both mentally and Held:
physically than the average boy of his age; he had been to sea as a cabin boy; was able to
earn P2.50 a day as a mechanical draftsman thirty days after the injury was incurred; and the (1) An accident pertains to an unforeseen event in which no fault or negligence attaches to
record discloses throughout that he was exceptionally well qualified to take care. The the defendant. It is "a fortuitous circumstance, event or happening; an event happening
evidence of record leaves no room for doubt that he well knew the explosive character of the without any human agency, or if happening wholly or partly through human agency, an event
2
which under the circumstances is unusual or unexpected by the person to whom it happens." to impress upon us. She even admitted to the doctor who treated her at the hospital that she
On the other hand, negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, did not do anything; the counter just fell on her.
guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would
do, or the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. Negligence
is "the failure to observe, for the protection of the interest of another person, that degree of
YLARDE VS. AQUINO
care, precaution and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby such other
person suffers injury." The test in determining the existence of negligence is: Did the Facts:
defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that reasonable care and caution which an
ordinarily prudent person would have used in the same situation? If not, then he is guilty of Mariano Soriano was the principal of the Gabaldon Primary School in Pangasinan while
negligence. We rule that the tragedy which befell ZHIENETH was no accident and that Edgardo Aquino was a teacher therein. The school had several concrete blocks which were
ZHIENETH's death could only be attributed to negligence. remnants of the old school shop destroyed in World War II. Aquino decided to help clear the
area. So after the classes, he gathered 18 of his male pupils, aged 10-11, and ordered them
(2) It is axiomatic that matters relating to declarations of pain or suffering and statements to dig beside a one-ton concrete block in making a hole where the stone can be buried. The
made to a physician are generally considered declarations and admissions. All that is required following day he called 4 of the 18 students, including Novelito Ylarde to complete the
for their admissibility as part of the res gestae is that they be made or uttered under the excavation. When the depth was right enough to accommodate the concrete block, Aquino
influence of a startling event before the declarant had the time to think and concoct a and his four pupils got out of the hole. Aquino left the children to level the loose soil while he
falsehood as witnessed by the person who testified in court. Under the circumstances thus went to see another teacher for the key to the school workroom where he can get some rope.
described, it is unthinkable for ZHIENETH, a child of such tender age and in extreme pain, to Before leaving, he told the children “not to touch the stone”. After he left, 3 of the children
have lied to a doctor whom she trusted with her life. We therefore accord credence to playfully jumped into the pit. Then, without any warning at all, the remaining one jumped on
Gonzales' testimony on the matter, i.e., ZHIENETH performed no act that facilitated her tragic top of the concrete block causing it to slide down towards the opening. Unfortunately, Novelito
death. Sadly, petitioners did, through their negligence or omission to secure or make stable Ylarde was pinned to the wall which led to his death 3 days after. The parents of Ylarde filed
the counter's base. a suit for damages against both Aquino and Soriano.
Without doubt, petitioner Panelo and another store supervisor were personally informed of
the danger posed by the unstable counter. Yet, neither initiated any concrete action to remedy Issues:
the situation nor ensure the safety of the store's employees and patrons as a reasonable and Can Aquino and Soriano be held liable for damages?
ordinary prudent man would have done. Thus, as confronted by the situation petitioners
miserably failed to discharge the due diligence required of a good father of a family. Anent Held:
the negligence imputed to ZHIENETH, we apply the conclusive presumption that favors
children below nine (9) years old in that they are incapable of contributory negligence. Even
if we attribute contributory negligence to ZHIENETH and assume that she climbed over the Under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, it is only the teacher and not the head of an academic
counter, no injury should have occurred if we accept petitioners' theory that the counter was school who should be answerable for torts committed by their students while in a school of
stable and sturdy. For if that was the truth, a frail six-year old could not have caused the arts and trades, it is only the head of the school who can be held liable. It was held in Amadora
counter to collapse. The physical analysis of the counter by both the trial court and Court of vs. Court of Appeals that:
Appeals and a scrutiny of the evidence on record reveal otherwise, i.e., it was not durable
after all. Shaped like an inverted "L," the counter was heavy, huge, and its top laden with Where the school is academic rather than technical or vocational in nature, responsibility for
formica. It protruded towards the customer waiting area and its base was not secured. the tort committed by the student will attach to the teacher in charge of such student, following
CRISELDA too, should be absolved from any contributory negligence. Initially, ZHIENETH the first part of the provision. This is the general rule. In the case of establishments of arts
held on to CRISELDA's waist, later to the latter's hand. CRISELDA momentarily released the and trades, it is the head thereof, and only he, who shall be held liable as an exception to the
child's hand from her clutch when she signed her credit card slip. At this precise moment, it general rule. In other words, teachers in general shall be liable for the acts of their students
was reasonable and usual for CRISELDA to let go of her child. Further, at the time ZHIENETH except where the school is technical in nature, in which case it is the head thereof who shall
was pinned down by the counter, she was just a foot away from her mother; and the gift- be answerable. Following the canonof reddendo singula sinquilis 'teachers' should apply to
wrapping counter was just four meters away from CRISELDA. The time and distance were the words "pupils and students' and 'heads of establishments of arts and trades to the word
both significant. ZHIENETH was near her mother and did not loiter as petitioners would want "apprentices."

Hence, applying the said doctrine to this case, we rule that private respondent Soriano, as
3
principal, cannot be held liable for the reason that the school he heads is an academic school
and not a school of arts and trades. Besides, as clearly admitted by private respondent
Aquino, private respondent Soriano did not give any instruction regarding the digging. US V. PINEDA (1918)

G.R. No. L-12858 January 22, 1918


From the foregoing, it can be easily seen that private respondent Aquino can be held liable
under Article 2180 of the Civil Code as the teacher-in-charge of the children for being Lessons Applicable: Experts and Professionals (Torts and Damages)
negligent in his supervision over them and his failure to take the necessary precautions to
prevent any injury on their persons. FACTS:

Feliciano Santos, having some sick horses, presented a copy of a prescription obtained from
it is very clear that private respondent Aquino acted with fault and gross negligence when he:
Dr. Richardson, and which on other occasions Santos had given to his horses with good
(1) failed to avail himself of services of adult manual laborers and instead utilized his pupils
results, at Pineda's drug store for filling. (Santiago Pineda, the defendant, is a registered
aged ten to
pharmacist)
eleven to make an excavation near the one-ton concrete stone which he knew to be a very
Under the supervision of Pineda, the prescription was prepared and returned to Santos in the
hazardous task; (2) required the children to remain inside the pit even after they had finished
form of 6 papers marked Botica Pineda
digging, knowing that the huge block was lying nearby and could be easily pushed or kicked
aside by any pupil who by chance may go to the perilous area; (3) ordered them to level the Santos, under the belief that he had purchased the potassium chlorate which he had asked
soil around the excavation when it was so apparent that the huge stone was at the brink of for, put two of the packages in water the doses to two of his sick horses.
falling; (4) went to a place where he would not be able to checkon the children's safety; and
(5) left the children close to the excavation, an obviously attractive nuisance. Another package was mixed with water for another horse, but was not used. The two horses,
to which had been given the preparation, died shortly afterwards.
The negligent act of private respondent Aquino in leaving his pupils in such a dangerous site
has a direct causalconnection to the death of the child Ylarde. Left by themselves, it was but Santos, thereupon, took the three remaining packages to the Bureau of Science for
natural for the children to play around. Everything that occurred was the natural and probable examination. Drs. Peña and Darjuan, of the Bureau of Science, on analysis found that the
effect of the negligent acts of private respondent Aquino. Needless to say, the child Ylarde packages contained not potassium chlorate but barium chlorate.
would not have died were it not for the unsafe situation created by private respondent Aquino
At the instance of Santos, the two chemists also went to the drug store of the defendant and
which exposed the lives of all the pupils concerned to real danger. (Ancheta vs. Ancheta, G.R.
bought potassium chlorate, which when analyzed was found to be barium chlorate. (Barium
No. 145370, March 4, 2004)
chlorate, it should be noted, is a poison; potassium chlorate is not.)

Dr. Buencamino, a veterinarian, performed an autopsy on the horses, and found that death
was the result of poisoning

RTC: held Pineda liable

ISSUE: W/N Pineda should be liable for negligence

HELD: YES. The judgment of the lower court, sentencing the defendant to pay a fine of P100,
with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs, is affirmed with the
cost of this instance against the appellant, without prejudice to any civil action which may be
instituted

Every pharmacist shall be responsible for the quality of all drugs, chemicals, medicines, and
poisons he may sell or keep for sale; and it shall be unlawful for any person whomsoever to
manufacture, prepare, sell, or administer any prescription, drug, chemical, medicine, or
poison under any fraudulent name, direction, or pretense, or to adulterate any drug, chemical,
medicine, or poison so used, sold or offered for sale. Any drug, chemical, medicine, or poison

4
shall be held to be adulterated or deteriorated within the meaning of this section if it differs
from the standard of quality or purity given in the United States Pharmacopoeia.
MERCURY DRUGS VS. JUDGE DE LEON
The same section of the Pharmacy Law also contains the following penal provision: "Any
person violating the provisions of this Act shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not GR. 165622 October 17, 2008
more than five hundred dollar." The Administrative Code, section 2676, changes the penalty
Facts:
somewhat by providing that: Any person engaging in the practice of pharmacy in the
Philippine Islands contrary to any provision of the Pharmacy Law or violating any provisions Respondent Raul T. De Leon was the presiding judge of RTC Parañaque. He noticed that
of said law for which no specific penalty s provided shall, for each offense, be punished by a his left eye was reddish. He also had difficulty reading. Onthe same evening, he met a
fine not to exceed two hundred pesos, or by imprisonment for not more than ninety days, or friend who was also a doctor for dinner at theFoohyui Restaurant.
both, in the discretion of the court.
De Leon consulted Dr. Milla about his irritated left eye. The latter
As a pharmacist, he is made responsible for the quality of all drugs and poisons which he
sells. And finally it is provided that it shall be unlawful for him to sell any drug or poison under prescribed the drugs “Cortisporin Opthalmic” and “Ceftin” to relieve his
any "fraudulent name." It is the one word "fraudulent" which has given the court trouble. What
eye problems.
did the Legislature intend to convey by this restrictive adjective?
Before heading to work the following morning, De Leon went to theBetterliving, Parañaque,
Were we to adhere to the technical definition of fraud, which the appellant vigorously insists
branch of Mercury Drug Store Corporation to buythe prescribed medicines. He showed his
upon, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to convict any druggist of a violation of the law.
prescription to petitioner AurmelaGanzon, a pharmacist assistant.
The prosecution would have to prove to a reasonable degree of certainty that the druggist
made a material representation; that it was false; that when he made it he knew that it was At his chambers, De Leon requested his sheriff to assist him in using theeye drops. As
false or made it recklessly without any knowledge of its truth and as positive assertion; that instructed, the sheriff applied 2-3 drops on respondent’s left eye. Instead of relieving his
he made it with the intention that it should be acted upon by the purchaser; that the purchaser irritation, respondent felt searing pain. Heimmediately rinsed the affected eye with water, but
acted in reliance upon it, and that the purchased thereby suffered injury. the pain did not subside. Only then did he discover that he was given the wrong medicine,
Under one conception, and it should not be forgotten that the case we consider are civil in “Cortisporin Otic Solution”
nature, the question of negligence or ignorance is irrelevant. The druggist is responsible as
an absolute guarantor of what he sells. Instead of caveat emptor, it should be caveat De Leon returned to the same Mercury Drug branch, with his left eye stillred and teary. When
venditor. he confronted Ganzon why he was given ear drops,instead of the prescribed eye drops, she
did not apologize and instead brazenly replied that she was unable to fully read the
prescription. In fact, itwas her supervisor who apologized and informed De Leon that they do
nothave stock of the needed “Cortisporin Opthalmic”.

De Leon wrote Mercury Drug, through its president, Ms. Vivian K.

Askuna, about the day’s incident.

It did not merit any response. Instead, twosales persons went to his office and informed him
that their supervisor was busy with other matters. Having been denied his simple desire for a
writtenapology and explanation,24De Leon filed a complaint for damages againstMercury
Drug.

Mercury Drug denied that it was negligent. It pointed out that the proximatecause of De Leon’s
unfortunate experience was his own

negligence. Heshould have first read and checked to see if he had the right eye
solution before he used any on his eye. He could have also requested his sheriff todo the

5
same before the latter applied the medicine on such a delicate part ofhis body. Mercury Drug chlorate, but whichturned out to be the potently deadly barium chlorate, his race horses died
also explained that there is no available medicine known as “Cortisporin Opthalmic” in the of poisoning only a few hours after. The wisdom of such a decision is unquestionable.If the
Philippine market. victims had been human beings instead of horses, the damage and loss would have been
irreparable
Furthermore,what was written on the piece of paper De Leon presented to Ganzon was
This Court once more reiterated that the profession of pharmacy demands great careand skill.
“Cortisporin Solution”. It reminded druggists to exercise the highest degree of care known to practical men.
Accordingly, she gave him the only available In cases where an injury is caused by the negligence of an employee,there instantly arises
a presumption of law that there has been negligence on the part of the employer, either in the
“Cortisporin Solution” in the market. Even the piece of paper De Leon
selection or supervision of oneÊs employees. This presumption may be rebutted by a clear
presented upon buying the medicine cannot be considered as proper prescription. It lacked showing that the employer has exercised thecare and diligence of a good father of the family.
the required information concerning the attending doctor’s name and license Mercury Drug failed to overcome such presumption.
number. According to Ganzon, she entertainedDe Leon’s purchase request only because he
As a buyer, De Leon relied on the expertise and experience of Mercury Drug and
was a regular customer of their branch.
itsemployees in dispensing to him the right medicine. This Court has ruled that in the purchase
RTC rendered judgment in favor of respondent. The RTC ruled thatalthough De Leon may and sale of drugs, the buyer and seller do not stand at arms length. Thereexists an imperative
have been negligent by failing to read themedicine’s label or to instruct his sheriff to do so, duty on the seller or the druggist to take precaution to preventdeath or injury to any person
Mercury Drug was first tobe negligent. Ganzon dispensed a drug without the requisite who relies on oneÊs absolute honesty and peculiarlearning. The Court emphasized: x x x The
prescription. Moreover, she did so without fully reading what medicine was exactly being nature of drugs is such that examinationwould not avail the purchaser anything. It would be
bought. In fact, she presumed that since what was available was thedrug Cortisporin Otic idle mockery for the customer tomake an examination of a compound of which he can know
Solution, it was what De Leon was attempting to buy. nothing. Consequently,it must be that the druggist warrants that he will deliver the drug called
for.
CA issued a resolution which dismissed the appeal.Issue:Whether or not Mercury Drugs is
still liable? Yes.Held:Mercury Drug and Ganzon can not exculpate themselves from any
liability. Asactive players in the field of dispensing medicines to the public, the highest degree
ofcare and diligence is expected of them. Likewise, numerous decisions, both here
andabroad, have laid salutary rules for the protection of human life and human health. Inthe
United States case of Tombari v. Conners, 85 Conn. 231 (1912), it was ruled thatthe
profession of pharmacy demands care and skill, and druggists must exercise careof a
specially high degree, the highest degree of care known to practical men. Inother words,
druggists must exercise the highest practicable degree of prudence andvigilance, and the
most exact and reliable safeguards consistent with the reasonableconduct of the business,
so that human life may not constantly be exposed to thedanger flowing from the substitution
of deadly poisons for harmless medicines.

SmithÊs Admrx v. Middelton, 56 LRA 484 (1902), teaches Us that one holdinghimself out as
competent to handle drugs, having rightful access to them, and reliedupon by those dealing
with him to exercise that high degree of caution and carecalled for by the peculiarly dangerous
nature of the business, cannot be heard to saythat his mistake by which he furnishes a
customer the most deadly of drugs for thosecomparatively harmless, is not in itself gross
negligence. In our own jurisdiction,United States v. Pineda, 37 Phil. 456 (1918), and

Mercury Drug Corporation v. Baking , 523 SCRA 184 (2007) are illustrative.

In Pineda, the potassium chloratedemanded by complainant had been intended for his race
horses. When complainantmixed with water what he thought and believed was potassium
6