Mercury Drug Corporation v. Sps.

Huang
June 22, 2007
st
1 Division. Puno, C.J.

FACTS:
Petitioner Mercury Drug Corporation owns a six-wheeler truck, and employed Rolando J.
del Rosario as driver. A 16 y/o boy named Stephen Huang drove his parents’ car (1911 Toyota
Corolla GLI Sedan). The two vehicles figured in a road accident on December 20, 1996 at around
10 pm within Taguig, Metro Manila as they were traversing C-5 highway, northbound, coming
from the direction of Alabang going to Pasig City.
The car was on the left innermost lane while the truck was on the next lane to its right.
The truck suddenly swerved to its left and slammed into the front of the car on its right side.
Because of this, the car hurled over the island where it hit a lamppost, spun around and landed
on the opposite lane. During the accident, it was shown that del Rosario only had a Traffic
Violation Receipt (TVR). This was because his driver’s license had been confiscated after being
apprehended for reckless driving.
Because of the incident, the car (valued at 300k) was totally wrecked, Stephen sustained
massive injuries to his spinal cord, head, face, and lung, causing him to be paralyzed for life
from chest down, which also required continuous medical and rehabilitation treatment.

Thus, his parents (herein respondents) filed a complaint faulting del Rosario for gross
negligence and reckless imprudence while driving, and Mercury Drug for failing to exercise the
diligence required in the selection and supervision of its driver.
Petitioners allege as defenses that the immediate and proximate cause of the accident
was Stephen Huang’s recklessness. According to del Rosario, he was driving on the left
innermost lane when the car bumped the truck’s front tire. (logically flawed if you imagine the
resulting damage.) Mercury Drug also testified on its hiring procedure, saying applicants are
required to take theoretical and actual driving tests, and a psych exam.
TC petitioners liable for actual, compensatory, mora, and exemplary damages, atty’s
fees, and litigation expenses. CA affirmed TC decision but decreased award for moral damages,
and subsequently dismissed MR. Hence this petition.

ISSUE: W/N presumption of negligence was properly rebutted by Mercury Drug – NO.

HELD:
Del Rosario’s liability:
- Del Rosario’s defense was that Huang was the one who bumped into the truck.
- To support their thesis, they tried to show the damages that the truck sustained at its
front right side. SC didn’t accept these, as the photographs presented were taken a
month after the accident, and Rogelio Pantua, the automechanic who repaired the truck
and authenticated the photographs, admitted that there were damages also on the left
side of the truck.
 - Del Rosario also claims that after the car bumped the truck, he lost control, which the SC
found absurd given the size of the truck (compared to the car which allegedly bumped
the truck).

Mercury Drug’s liability:

- SC used as basis Art 2176 & 2180 of NCC
- To be relieved of liability, Mercury Drug should show that it exercised the diligence of a
good father of a family, thus it is required to examine its applicants as to their
qualifications, experience, and service records. They should also formulate standard
operating procedures, monitor their implementation, and impose disciplinary measures
for their breach.
- All of this, according to SC, must be submitted through concrete proof, including
documentary evidence.
- In the case: Mercury Drug presented testimonial evidence on its hiring procedure, and
that it required applicants to take theoretical and actual driving tests, and psychological
examination. However, as regards the driver, it was proven that:
o He took the tests for a delivery man (not as Truck Man)
o He used a light vehicle during the tests
o Tests conducted were inadequate
o NBI and police clearances not shown
o Last seminar attended was 12 yrs. Ago
o No backup driver for long trips
o Also, during the accident, the ddriver merely had a TVR, as his license was
confiscated. Despite this, Mercury Drug didn’t sanction him.
- Thus, SC, using the aforementioned details, held that Mercury drug failed to exercise
due diligence in the supervision and discipline over its employees.

NOTES & DICTA:

Art. 2176. 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.
Art. 2180. The obligation imposed by article 2176 is demandable not only for ones own acts or
omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.