FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 156037. May 25, 2007.]

MERCURY DRUG CORPORATION , petitioner, vs. SEBASTIAN M.

BAKING, respondent.

DECISION

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J : p

For our resolution is the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari 1

assailing the Decision 2 dated May 30, 2002 and Resolution dated November 5,
2002 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 57435, entitled "Sebastian M.
Baking, plaintiff-appellee, versus Mercury Drug Co. Inc., defendant-appellant."
CHaDIT

The facts are:

On November 25, 1993, Sebastian M. Baking, respondent, went to the
clinic of Dr. Cesar Sy for a medical check-up. On the following day, after
undergoing an ECG, blood, and hematology examinations and urinalysis, Dr. Sy
found that respondent's blood sugar and triglyceride were above normal levels.
Dr. Sy then gave respondent two medical prescriptions — Diamicron for his
blood sugar and Benalize tablets for his triglyceride.

Respondent then proceeded to petitioner Mercury Drug Corporation

(Alabang Branch) to buy the prescribed medicines. However, the saleslady
misread the prescription for Diamicron as a prescription for Dormicum. Thus,
what was sold to respondent was Dormicum, a potent sleeping tablet.

Unaware that what was given to him was the wrong medicine, respondent
took one pill of Dormicum on three consecutive days — November 6, 1993 at
9:00 p.m., November 7 at 6:00 a.m., and November 8 at 7:30 a.m.
On November 8 or on the third day he took the medicine, respondent
figured in a vehicular accident. The car he was driving collided with the car of
one Josie Peralta. Respondent fell asleep while driving. He could not remember
anything about the collision nor felt its impact. aSECAD

Suspecting that the tablet he took may have a bearing on his physical and
mental state at the time of the collision, respondent returned to Dr. Sy's clinic.
Upon being shown the medicine, Dr. Sy was shocked to find that what was sold
to respondent was Dormicum, instead of the prescribed Diamicron.
Thus, on April 14, 1994, respondent filed with the Regional Trial Court
(RTC), Branch 80 of Quezon City a complaint for damages against petitioner,
docketed as Civil Case No. Q-94-20193.
After hearing, the trial court rendered its Decision dated March 18, 1997
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 in favor of respondent, thus:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, by preponderance of
evidence, the Court hereby renders judgment in favor of the plaintiff
and against the defendant ordering the latter to pay mitigated
damages as follows:
1. P250,000.00 as moral damages;

2. P20,000.00 as attorney's fees and litigation expenses;

3. plus 1/2% of the cost of the suit.

SO ORDERED.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals, in its Decision, affirmed in toto the RTC
judgment. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied in a
Resolution dated November 5, 2002.
Hence, this petition.
Petitioner contends that the Decision of the Court of Appeals is not in
accord with law or prevailing jurisprudence.
Respondent, on the other hand, maintains that the petition lacks merit
and, therefore, should be denied.
The issues for our resolution are:
1. Whether petitioner was negligent, and if so, whether such
negligence was the proximate cause of respondent's accident; and
2. Whether the award of moral damages, attorney's fees, litigation
expenses, and cost of the suit is justified.
Article 2176 of the New Civil Code provides: HCSEIT

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.

To sustain a claim based on the above provision, the following requisites

must concur: (a) damage suffered by the plaintiff; (b) fault or negligence of the
defendant; and, (c) connection of cause and effect between the fault or
negligence of the defendant and the damage incurred by the plaintiff. 3
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
drugstore employees will not exercise the highest degree of care and diligence
in selling medicines. Inasmuch as the matter of negligence is a question of fact,
we defer to the findings of the trial court affirmed by the Court of Appeals. AHaETS

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 Obviously, petitioner's employee was grossly negligent in selling to
respondent Dormicum, instead of the prescribed Diamicron. Considering that a
fatal mistake could be a matter of life and death for a buying patient, the said
employee should have been very cautious in dispensing medicines. She should
have verified whether the medicine she gave respondent was indeed the one
prescribed by his physician. The care required must be commensurate with the
danger involved, and the skill employed must correspond with the superior
knowledge of the business which the law demands. 4
Petitioner contends that the proximate cause of the accident was
respondent's negligence in driving his car.

We disagree.
Proximate cause is defined as any cause that produces injury in a natural
and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, such
that the result would not have occurred otherwise. Proximate cause is
determined from the facts of each case, upon a combined consideration of
logic, common sense, policy, and precedent. 5
Here, the vehicular accident could not have occurred had petitioner's
employee been careful in reading Dr. Sy's prescription. Without the potent
effects of Dormicum, a sleeping tablet, it was unlikely that respondent would
fall asleep while driving his car, resulting in a collision.
Complementing Article 2176 is Article 2180 of the same Code which
states:
ART. 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is
demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions, but also for those
of persons for whom one is responsible.

xxx xxx xxx

The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are
likewise responsible for damages caused by their employees in the
service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on the
occasion of their functions.
aACEID

Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their

employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their
assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any
business or industry.

xxx xxx xxx

The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the
persons herein mentioned prove that they observed the diligence of a
good father of a family to prevent damage.

It is thus clear that the employer of a negligent employee is liable for the
damages caused by the latter. When an injury is caused by the negligence of
an employee, there instantly arises a presumption of the law that there has
been negligence on the part of the employer, either in the selection of his
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 employee or in the supervision over him, after such selection. The presumption,
however, may be rebutted by a clear showing on the part of the employer that
he has exercised the care and diligence of a good father of a family in the
selection and supervision of his employee. 6 Here, petitioner's failure to prove
that it exercised the due diligence of a good father of a family in the selection
and supervision of its employee will make it solidarily liable for damages
caused by the latter.
As regards the award of moral damages, we hold the same to be in order.
Moral damages may be awarded whenever the defendant's wrongful act or
omission is the proximate cause of the plaintiff's physical suffering, mental
anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings,
moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury in the cases specified or
analogous to those provided in Article 2219 of the Civil Code. 7

Respondent has adequately established the factual basis for the award of
moral damages when he testified that he suffered mental anguish and anxiety
as a result of the accident caused by the negligence of petitioner's employee.
There is no hard-and-fast rule in determining what would be a fair and
reasonable amount of moral damages, since each case must be governed by its
own peculiar facts. However, it must be commensurate to the loss or injury
suffered. 8 Taking into consideration the attending circumstances here, we are
convinced that the amount awarded by the trial court is exorbitant. Thus, we
reduce the amount of moral damages from P250,000.00 to P50,000.00 only.

In addition, we also deem it necessary to award exemplary damages.

Article 2229 allows the grant of exemplary damages by way of example or
correction for the public good. As mentioned earlier, the drugstore business is
affected with public interest. Petitioner should have exerted utmost diligence in
the selection and supervision of its employees. On the part of the employee
concerned, she should have been extremely cautious in dispensing
pharmaceutical products. Due to the sensitive nature of its business, petitioner
must at all times maintain a high level of meticulousness. Therefore, an award
of exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 is in order. SADECI

On the matter of attorney's fees and expenses of litigation, it is settled

that the reasons or grounds for the award thereof must be set forth in the
decision of the court. 9 Since the trial court's decision did not give the basis of
the award, the same must be deleted. In Vibram Manufacturing Corporation v.
Manila Electric Company, 10 we held:
Likewise, the award for attorney's fees and litigation expenses
should be deleted. Well-enshrined is that "an award for attorney's fees
must be stated in the text of the court's decision and not in the
dispositive portion only" (Consolidated Bank and Trust Corporation
(Solidbank) v. Court of Appeals, 246 SCRA 193 [1995] and Keng Hua
Paper Products, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 286 SCRA 257 [1998]) . This is
also true with the litigation expenses where the body of the decision
discussed nothing for its basis.

WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. The challenged Decision and

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 57435 are AFFIRMED with
modification in the sense that (a) the award of moral damages to respondent is
reduced from P250,000.00 to P50,000.00; (b) petitioner is likewise ordered to
pay said respondent exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00; and (c)
the award of attorney's fees and litigation expenses is deleted.

Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Puno, C.J., Azcuna and Garcia, JJ., concur.

Corona, J., is on leave.

Footnotes
1. Filed under Rule 45, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.

2. Penned by Associate Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and concurred in by

Associate Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. and Associate Justice Mario L.
Guarina III.
3. FGU Insurance Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118889, March 23,
1998, 287 SCRA 718, citing Andamo v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 191
SCRA 195 (1990).

4. United States v. Pineda , 37 Phil. 456 (1918).

5. Quezon City Government v. Dacara, G.R. No. 150304, June 15, 2005, 460
SCRA 343, citing Raynera v. Hiceta, 306 SCRA 102, 108 (1999).

6. Baliwag Transit, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 116624, September 20,
1996, 262 SCRA 230, 234.

7. Art. 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous
cases:

(1) A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries;

(2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries;
(3) Seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts;

(4) Adultery or concubinage;

(5) Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest;

(6) Illegal search;

(7) Libel, slander or any other form of defamation;

(8) Malicious prosecution;

(9) Acts mentioned in article 309;
(10) Acts and actions referred to in articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34,
and 35.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 xxx xxx xxx

8. Samson, Jr. v. Bank of the Philippine Islands, G.R. No. 150487, July 10, 2003,
405 SCRA 607 (citations omitted).
9. Cagungun v. Planters Development Bank , G.R. No. 158674, October 17,
2005, 473 SCRA 259, citing Cipriano v. Court of Appeals, 263 SCRA 711
(1996).

10. G.R. No. 149052, August 9, 2005, 466 SCRA 178.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com