8. Mercury Drug Corporation vs Baking, GR No.

156037, May 28, 2007

FACTS: Respondent Baking went to the clinic of Dr. Cesar Sy for a medical check-up. After undergoing an ECG,
blood and hematology examinations, and urinalysis, Dy. Sy found that respondent’s blood sugar and triglyceride
were above normal levels. Dy. Sy prescribed two medical prescriptions – Diamicron for his blood sugar and
Benalize tablets for his triglyceride.
Respondent bought the prescribed medicines at petitioner Mercury Drug Store. However, the saleslady
misread the prescription for Diamicron for Domicrum, a potent sleeping tablet. Respondent then took the
medicines for three consecutive days unaware of the mistake of the saleslady. On the third day, he figured in a
vehicular accident where his car collided with another car driven by Jose Peralta. It turned out that respondent
fell asleep while driving without idea regarding the accident. Suspecting that the tablet he took may have caused
the accident, he returned to Dr. Sy and the latter was shocked because of the wrong medicine. Respondent
thereafter filed with RTC a complaint for damages against petitioner. RTC ruled in favor of the plaintiff which
was affirmed in toto by the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner was negligent and if so, was it the proximate cause of the accident?
RULING: Yes. The Court cited Article 2176 of the New Civil Code which provides that “Whenever by act or
omission causes damage to another, there being fault of 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.
The Court also enumerated the three elements of quasi-delict, to wit:
1. Damage suffered by the plaintiff;
2. Fault or negligence of the defendant;
3. Connection of the cause and effect between the fault or negligence of the defendant and the damage
incurred by the plaintiff.
The Court stressed that there is no dispute that respondent suffered damages. It is generally recognized
that the drugstore business is imbued with public interest. The health and safety of the people will be put into
jeopardy if the drugstore employee will not exercise the highest degree of care and diligence.
In this case, the petitioner’s employee was grossly negligent. The Court ruled that the proximate cause
of the accident was the petitioner’s employee’s negligence. The vehicular accident could have not occurred had
the employee been careful to his job.