TORTS Case Digest Prepared by: Mikhail Aggabao

11 Mercury Drug v Baking

TOPIC: Quasi Delicts – Concept of Negligence
Court Supreme Court First Division
Ponente Sandoval-Gutierrez
Citation G.R. No. 156037
Date 25 May 2007
Petitioners Mercury Drug Corporation
Respondent Sebastian M. Baking
Relevant Codal
Provision NCC Article 2176 (QUASI DELICT)
Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay
for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the
parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.

NCC Article 2180 (LIABILITY OF PERSONS FOR WHOM ONE IS RESPONSIBLE)

The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions, but also
for those of persons for whom one is responsible.
-
The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for damages
caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on the
occasion of their functions.

Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting
within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any business or
industry.
-
The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned prove that they
observed the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage.

Case Doctrine Related to Topic

Requisites of claim for damages due to negligence:

1. DAMAGE suffered by plaintiff; 2. FAULT or NEGLIGENCE of defendant; 3. CONNECTION of CAUSE
AND EFFECT between damage and negligence (must be proximate cause)

Liability of Employer in Negligence of Employee

- Negligence of employee raises a disputable presumption of negligence of employer in the selection
and supervision of employee
- Disputable presumption is rebutted by showing that diligence of a good father of a family was
exercised in the selection and supervision of the employee concerned

On Negligence (as absence of due diligence required):

- The care required must be commensurate with the danger involved…

FACTS:

MERCURY DRUG SALESLADY MISREADING PRESCRIPTION

Sebastian Baking (Baking) found his blood sugar and triglycerides were above normal levels. His doctor, Cesar Sy,
prescribed for him Diamicron (for blood sugar) and Benalize (for triglyceride) tablets.

The saleslady at Mercury Drug Corporation Alabang Branch misread Baking’s prescription and instead sold to him,
Dormicum tablets, which are potent sleeping tablets. Unaware of the error, Baking took one pill of Dormicum for
three consecutive days.

VEHICULAR ACCIDENT
On 8 November, the third day he took the medicine, Baking figured in a vehicular accident where his car collided with
that of one Josie Peralta. Baking fell asleep while driving and he could not remember nor felt the impact of the
collision.
Suspecting that the medicines he had been taking took a bearing on his physical and mental state at the time of
collision, he consulted Dr. Sy who was shocked to find that respondent was sold and had been taking Dormicum
instead of the prescribed Diamicron.

RTC RULED IN FAVOR OF BAKING; CA AFFIRMS DECISION IN TOTO

Learning this, Baking filed a case against Mercury Drug Corporation with the RTC of Quezon City which awarded him
Php 250,000 as moral damages, Php 20,000 as attorney’s fees and litigation expenses, and half of the cost of the suit.

Page 1 of 2
TORTS Case Digest Prepared by: Mikhail Aggabao
11 Mercury Drug v Baking
TOPIC: Quasi Delicts – Concept of Negligence
Mercury Drug appealed, but the CA affirmed the RTC decision in toto and denied Mercury’s motion for
reconsideration. Hence this current appeal/petition.

ISSUE # 1 HELD and RATIO

Whether or not YES.
petitioner was
negligent The court decided based on Article 2176 (see above) and provided the following requisites to
sustain a claim for liability for damages under the said article:

1. DAMAGE suffered by plaintiff

There is no question that damage was incurred by Baking, there The court explained
that

2. FAULT or NEGLIGENCE of defendant

Obviously, petitioner’s employee was grossly negligent in selling Dormicum instead of
the prescribed Diamicron.
- It is generally recognized that the drugstore business is imbued with public
interest. The health and safety of the people will be put in jeopardy if drugstore
employees will not exercise the highest degree of care and diligence in selling
medicines. A mistake could be a matter of life and death for a buying patient.
- She should have verified whether the medicine she gave respondent was indeed
the one prescribed by his physician. The care required must be commensurate
with the danger involved, and the skill employed must correspond with the superior
knowledge of the business which the law demands.

3. CONNECTION OF CAUSE AND EFFECT between the fault/negligence of

defendant, and the damage suffered by plaintiff (discussed below)

ISSUE #2 HELD and RATIO

Whether or not YES, the employees negligence was the proximate cause of the accident.
negligence
was the PROXIMATE CAUSE is defined as any cause that produces injury in a natural and
proximate cause continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause such that the result
of respondent’s would not have occurred otherwise. It is determined from the facts of each case, upon a
accident combined consideration of logic, common sense, policy, and precedent.

Here, the vehicular accident could not have occurred had petitioner's employee been careful in
reading the prescription. Without the potent effects of Dormicum, it was unlikely that
respondent would fall asleep while driving, resulting in a collision.

ON LIABILITY OF MERCURY DRUG AS EMPLOYER:

Mercury Drug Corporation’s liability as employer was derived from Article 2180 (see above). The court explained that
negligence of an employee gives rise to a disputable presumption of law that the employer has been negligent in the
selection of and supervision over the employee. This presumption is rebutted only by a clear showing of the
employer’s diligence (that of a good father of a family) in the selection and supervision of the employee. Here,
Mercury failed to prove that it exercised the due diligence required.

ON THE PROPRIETY OF THE AWARD OF MORAL DAMAGES:

Moral damages may be awarded whenever the defendant's wrongful act or omission is the proximate cause of the
damage (types specified in Art. 2219 and analogous cases) suffered by plaintiff. There is no hard-and-fast rule in
determining what would be a fair and reasonable amount of moral damages, since each case must be governed by its
own peculiar facts. The award of moral damage must be commensurate to the loss or injury suffered.

Baking has adequately established the factual basis for the award of moral damages when he testified that he
suffered mental anguish and anxiety as a result of the accident. The court however, saw it fit to reduce the award of
moral damages from Php 250k to Php 50k only, taking into consideration the attending circumstances.

ON THE AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES

The court deleted the award of attorney’s fees as the reason or grounds for the award was not set forth in the
RTC/CA’s decision.

RULING:
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The CA decision was AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION: (1) reducing the
amount of moral damages awarded, and (2) deleting the award of attorney’s fees.

Page 2 of 2