MERCURY DRUG CORPORATION and AURMELA GANZON vs.
RAUL DE LEON
G.R. No. 165622 [ October 17, 2008]
Facts:
Respondent Raul T. De Leon, a judge, noticed that his left eye was reddish. He also had difficulty reading. On the same evening, he met a friend who happened to be a doctor, Dr. Charles Milla. The latter prescribed the drugs “CortisporinOpthalmic” and “Ceftin” to relieve his eye problems. Before heading to work the following morning, De Leon went to the Betterliving, Parañaque, branch of Mercury Drug Store Corporation to buy the prescribed medicines. He showed his prescription to petitioner AurmelaGanzon, a pharmacist assistant. At his chambers, De Leon requested his sheriff to assist him in using the eye drops. As instructed, the sheriff applied 2-3 drops on respondent’s left eye. Instead of relieving his irritation, respondent felt searing pain. He immediately rinsed the affected eye with water, but the pain did not subside. Only then did he discover that he was given the wrong medicine, “CortisporinOtic Solution.” De Leon returned to the same Mercury Drug branch, with his left eye still red and teary. When 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 and it was her supervisor who apologized and informed De Leon that they do not have stock of the needed CortisporinOpthalmic. De Leon wrote Mercury Drug, through its president, Ms. Vivian K. Askuna, about the day’s incident. Instead, two sales persons went to his office and informed him that their supervisor was busy with other matters. Having been denied his simple desire for a written apology and explanation, De Leon filed a complaint for damages against Mercury Drug.
Issue:
Whether or not the Mercury Drug and Ganzon are liable.
Ruling:
Yes. Mercury Drug and Ganzoncannot exculpate themselves from any liability. As active players in the field of dispensing medicines to the public, the highest degree of care and diligence is expected of them. Likewise, numerous decisions, both here and abroad, have laid salutary rules for the protection of human life and human health. In the United States case of Tombari v. Conners, it was ruled that the profession of pharmacy demands care and skill, and druggists must exercise care of a specially high degree, the highest degree of care known to practical men. In other words, druggists must exercise the highest practicable degree of prudence and vigilance, and the most exact and reliable safeguards consistent with the reasonable conduct of the business, so that human life may not constantly be exposed to the danger flowing from the substitution of deadly poisons for harmless medicines.
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 selection or supervision of one’s employees. This presumption may be rebutted by a clear showing that the employer has exercised the care and diligence of a good father of the family. Mercury Drug failed to overcome such presumption.
Petitioners Mercury Drug and Ganzon have similarly failed to live up to high standard of diligence expected of them as pharmacy professionals. They were grossly negligent in dispensing ear drops instead of the prescribed eye drops to De Leon.
As a buyer, De Leon relied on the expertise and experience of Mercury Drug and its employees in dispensing to him the right medicine. This Court has ruled that in the purchase and sale of drugs, the buyer and seller do not stand at arms length. There exists an imperative duty on the seller or the druggist to take precaution to prevent death or injury to any person who relies on one’s absolute honesty and peculiar learning.
