Facts
De Leon noticed that his left eye was reddish and that he had difficulty reading. Dr. Charles Milla, a friend, prescribed him “Cortisporin Ophthalmic” and “Ceftin”. When he went to the Betterliving, Paranaque, branch of Mercury Drug, he showed his prescription to Ganzon, the pharmacist’s assistant, and was handed medicine. When the medicine drops were applied to his left eye, he felt searing pain. He realized that he was given “Cortisporin Otic Solution”, ear drops. When De Leon confronted Ganzon, she did not apologize and even said that she was unable to fully read the prescription. Her supervisor was the one who apologized and informed him that the meds he was looking for were out of stock.
He filed a complaint for damages against Mercury Drug. In their defense, Mercury Drug argues that the proximate cause of the unfortunate experience was his own negligence since he did not check to see if he had the right eye solution before having it applied.
ISSUE: Should Mercury Drug be held negligent despite the failure of the customer to check the label of the medicine given to him?
Ruling
Yes. The SC held that Mercury Drug and Ganzon were grossly negligent in dispensing ear drops instead of eye drops.
American and Philippine Jurisprudence establishes that the profession of pharmacy demands care and skill, and druggists must exercise the highest degree of care known to practical men.
- For the latter, this means the highest practicable degree of prudence and vigilance, and the most exact and reliable safeguards consistent with the reasonable conduct of business. Druggists cannot escape responsibility for making an accidental mistake since they hold themselves out to be competent, have rightful access to drugs, and are relied upon by the public.
Mercury Drug and Ganzon cannot shift blame to De Leon for failing to read the label. In the purchase and sale of drugs, there is an imperative duty on the druggist to take precautions to prevent death/injury to any person who relies on one’s absolute honesty and peculiar learning.
- De Leon relied on the expertise of Mercury Drug and its employees in dispensing the right medicine.
- Ganzon could have verified whether the medicine she gave was what was prescribed or consulted her supervisor; if she was uncertain, she could have refused to sell De Leon the drug.
- Since Ganzon was negligent, the presumption that the employer was negligent in the selection and/or supervision of the employee arises. Mercury Drug was unable to overcome the same.