Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=51660:gr-165622-2008&amp;catid=1510&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 22:51:18+00:00

Document:
MERCURY DRUG CORPORATION and AURMELA GANZON, Petitioners, v. RAUL DE LEON, Respondents.
IN REALITY, for the druggist, mistake is negligence and care is no defense.1 Sa isang parmasyutika, ang pagkakamali ay kapabayaan at ang pagkalinga ay hindi angkop na dipensa.
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari 2 of two Resolutions3 of the Court of Appeals (CA). The first Resolution granted respondent's motion to dismiss while the second denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
Also, Mercury Drug explained that there is no available medicine known as "Cortisporin Opthalmic" in the Philippine market.30 Furthermore, what was written on the piece of paper De Leon presented to Ganzon was "Cortisporin Solution."31 Accordingly, she gave him the only available "Cortisporin Solution" in the market.
WHEREFORE, the court finds for the plaintiff.
For pecuniary loss suffered, Mercury Drug Store is to pay ONE HUNDRED FIFTY-THREE PESOS AND TWENTY-FIVE CENTAVOS (Php 153.25), the value of the medicine.
As moral damages defendants is (sic) ordered to pay ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (Php 100,000.00).
To serve as a warning to those in the field of dispensing medicinal drugs discretion of the highest degree is expected of them, Mercury Drug Store and defendant Aurmila (sic) Ganzon are ordered to pay plaintiff the amount of THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (Php 300,000.00) as exemplary damages.
Due to defendants callous reaction to the mistake done by their employee which forced plaintiff to litigate, Defendant (sic) Mercury Drug Store is to pay plaintiff attorney's fees of P50,000.00 plus litigation expenses.
When the injury is caused by the negligence of a servant or employee, there instantly arises a presumption of law that there was negligence on the part of the employer or employer either in the selection of the servant or employee, or in the supervision over him after the selection or both.
Dissatisfied with the RTC ruling, Mercury Drug and Ganzon elevated the matter to the CA. Accordingly, they filed their respective briefs. Raising technical grounds, De Leon moved for the appeal's dismissal.
"The premise that underlies all appeals is that they are merely rights which arise form a statute; therefore, they must be exercised in the manner prescribed by law. It is to this end that rules governing pleadings and practice before the appellate court were imposed. These rules were designed to assist the appellate court in the accomplishment of its tasks, and overall, to enhance the orderly administration of justice."
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DISMISSING PETITIONER'S APPEAL BASED ON THE CASES OF DE LIANA v. CA (370 SCRA 349) AND HEIRS OF PALOMINIQUE v. CA (134 SCRA 331).
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN DISMISSING PETITIONER'S APPEAL DESPITE SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 1(F), RULE 60 AND SECTION 13, RULE 44 OF THE RULES OF COURT.
The appeal succeeds in part.
Dismissal of an appeal under Rule 50 is discretionary.
The absence of page reference to the record is a ground for dismissal. It is a requirement intended to ultimately aid the appellate court in arriving at a just and proper conclusion of the case.54 However, as earlier discussed, such dismissal is not mandatory, but discretionary on the part of the appellate court.
Similar to the instant case, the appellant's brief in Yuchengco v. Court of Appeals59 contained references to Exhibits and Transcript of Stenographic Notes and attachments. These were found to have substantially complied with the requirements of Section 13(c) and (d) of Rule 44.
It is true that in De Liano v. Court of Appeals,61 this Court held that a statement of facts unaccompanied by a page reference to the record may be presumed to be without support in the record and may be stricken or disregarded altogether. However, the instant case is not on all fours with De Liano.
In the case under review, although there were no page references to the records, Mercury Drug and Ganzon referred to the exhibits, TSN, and attachments of the case. Despite its deficiencies, the brief is sufficient in form and substance as to apprise the appellate court of the essential facts, nature of the case, the issues raised, and the laws necessary for the disposition of the same.
However, brushing aside technicalities, petitioners are still liable. Mercury Drug and Ganzon failed to exercise the highest degree of diligence expected of them.
Denying that they were negligent, Mercury Drug and Ganzon pointed out that De Leon's own negligence was the proximate cause of his injury. They argued that any injury would have been averted had De Leon exercised due diligence before applying the medicine on his eye. Had he cautiously read the medicine bottle label, he would have known that he had the wrong medicine.
In our own jurisdiction, United States v. Pineda81 and Mercury Drug Corporation v. Baking are illustrative.82 In Pineda, the potassium chlorate demanded by complainant had been intended for his race horses. When complainant mixed with water what he thought and believed was potassium chlorate, but which turned out to be the potently deadly barium chlorate, his race horses died of poisoning only a few hours after.
This Court once more reiterated that the profession of pharmacy demands great care and skill. It reminded druggists to exercise the highest degree of care known to practical men.
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. Worse, they have once again attempted to shift the blame to their victim by underscoring his own failure to read the label.
Mercury Drug and Ganzon's defense that the latter gave the only available Cortisporin solution in the market deserves scant consideration. Ganzon could have easily verified whether the medicine she gave De Leon was, indeed, the prescribed one or, at the very least, consulted her supervisor. Absent the required certainty in the dispensation of the medicine, she could have refused De Leon's purchase of the drug.
Taking into consideration the attending facts of the case under review, We find the amount awarded by the trial court to be excessive. Following the precedent case of Mercury Drug, We reduce the amount from P100,000.00 to P50,000.00 only.100 In addition, We also deem it necessary to reduce the award of exemplary damages from the exorbitant amount of P300,000.00 to P25,000.00 only.
It is generally recognized that the drugstore business is imbued with public interest. This can not be more real for Mercury Drug, the country's biggest drugstore chain. This Court can not tolerate any form of negligence which can jeopardize the health and safety of its loyal patrons. Moreover, this Court will not countenance the cavalier manner it treated De Leon. Not only does a pharmacy owe a customer the duty of reasonable care, but it is also duty-bound to accord one with respect.
WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Decisions of the CA and the RTC in ParaÃ±aque City are AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION, in that the award of moral and exemplary damages is reduced to P50,000.00 and P25,000.00, respectively.
1 United States v. Pineda, 37 Phil. 456, 465 (1918).
2 Treated here as Petition for Certiorari.
3 Rollo, pp. 128-130 & 141-143. Dated July 8, 2004 and October 4, 2004, respectively. Penned by Associate Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr., with Associate Justices Mariano C. Del Castillo and Noel S. Tijam, concurring.
48 Yuchengco v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 165793, October 27, 2006, 505 SCRA 716; De Leon v. Court of Appeals, 432 Phil. 775 (2002); Philippine National Bank v. Philippine Milling Co., Inc., 136 Phil. 212 (1969).
(i) The fact that the order or judgment appealed from is not appealable.
50 Philippine National Bank v. Philippine Milling Co., Inc., supra note 48, at 215.
51 Maqui v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-41609, February 24, 1976, 69 SCRA 368.
52 Philippine Coconut Authority v. Corona International, Inc., G.R. No. 139910, September 29, 2000, 341 SCRA 519.
53 Casilan v. Chavez, G.R. No. L-17334, February 28, 1962, 4 SCRA 599.
55 Yuchengco v. Court of Appeals, supra note 48; People v. Dela Concha, G.R. No. 140205, September 3, 2002, 388 SCRA 280; De Leon v. Court of Appeals, supra note 48.
57 De Leon v. Court of Appeals, supra note 48, at 790.
59 Yuchengco v. Court of Appeals, supra note 48.
61 G.R. No. 142316, November 22, 2001, 370 SCRA 349.
62 De Liano v. Court of Appeals, id. at 358.
67 G.R. NOS. L-39288-89, January 31, 1985, 134 SCRA 331.
68 Heirs of Palomique v. Court of Appeals, id. at 333.
70 Buenaflor v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 142021, November 29, 2000, 346 SCRA 563.
71 Siguenza v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-44050, July 16, 1985, 137 SCRA 570.
72 Gerales v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 85909, February 9, 1993, 218 SCRA 638; Teodoro v. Carague, G.R. No. 96004, February 21, 1992, 206 SCRA 429; Cabutin v. Amacio, G.R. No. 55228, February 28, 1989, 170 SCRA 750; American Express International, Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. L-70766, November 9, 1988, 167 SCRA 209; Fonseca v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-36035, August 30, 1988, 165 SCRA 40; Calasiao Farmers Cooperative Marketing Association, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-50633, August 17, 1981, 106 SCRA 630; A-One Feeds, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-35560, October 30, 1980, 100 SCRA 590; Gregorio v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-43511, July 28, 1976, 72 SCRA 120; Alonso v. Villamor, 16 Phil. 315 (1910).
73 Mercury Drug Corporation v. Baking, G.R. No. 156037, May 25, 2007, 523 SCRA 184; U.S. v. Pineda, supra note 1, at 462.
74 People v. Castillo, C.A. No. 227, February 1, 1946.
75 85 Conn. 231 (1912).
76 Tombari v. Conners, id.
77 56 Am. Dec. 563 (1852).
78 Fleet v. Hollenkemp, id.
79 56 L.R.A. 484 (1902).
80 Smith's Adm x. v. Middleton, id.
83 People v. Castillo, supra note 74.
84 Mercury Drug Corporation v. Baking, supra note 73, at 186-187.
91 Mercury Drug Corporation v. Baking, supra note 73, at 190-191.
92 Hooks SuperX v. McLaughlin, (ind) 642 NE 2d 514 (1994).
93 United States v. Pineda, supra note 1, at 464.
Art. 2217. Moral damages include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury. Though incapable of pecuniary computation, moral damages may be recorded if they are the proximate result of the defendant's wrongful act for omission.
97 Kierulf v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 99301, March 13, 1997, 269 SCRA 433; Lamis v. Ong, G.R. No. 148923, August 11, 2005, 466 SCRA 510.
98 Mercury Drug Corporation v. Baking, supra note 73, at 191.
99 Lamis v. Ong, supra; Samson, Jr. v. Bank of the Philippine Islands, G.R. No. 150487, July 10, 2003, 405 SCRA 607; Filinvest Credit Corporation v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. L-65935, September 30, 1988, 166 SCRA 155.
100 Mercury Drug Corporation v. Baking, supra note 73, at 192.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 

Art. 2217
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.