The Supreme Court has affirmed that pharmacists must exercise the highest degree of care when dispensing medicine. This means that any mistake, such as providing the wrong medication, constitutes negligence, and a defense of due diligence is not sufficient. This ruling underscores the critical responsibility pharmacists have in ensuring patient safety, highlighting that their expertise is relied upon to prevent harm from incorrect drug dispensation. Patients have the right to expect the medicine they purchase is precisely what their doctor prescribed.

When a Simple Prescription Turns Into a Painful Mistake

Raul De Leon, a presiding judge, experienced irritation in his left eye and consulted Dr. Charles Milla, who prescribed “Cortisporin Opthalmic” and “Ceftin.” He went to Mercury Drug Store and gave his prescription to Aurmela Ganzon, a pharmacist assistant. Instead of receiving the prescribed eye drops, De Leon was given “Cortisporin Otic Solution,” which are ear drops. Upon application, De Leon immediately felt searing pain and discovered the error. He sought damages from Mercury Drug for the pharmacist’s negligence.

Mercury Drug argued that De Leon’s negligence was the proximate cause. They stated that De Leon should have checked the label before applying the drops. The company also claimed that “Cortisporin Opthalmic” wasn’t available, and the paper De Leon presented wasn’t a valid prescription as it lacked the doctor’s information.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Mercury Drug liable. It said Ganzon was negligent for dispensing a drug without proper verification. It awarded De Leon damages. Mercury Drug elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA), which dismissed the appeal. It cited procedural lapses in the appellant’s brief. The Supreme Court then reviewed the case.

The Supreme Court acknowledged the procedural lapse of failing to properly cite references. However, it emphasized that **rules of procedure should promote, not defeat, substantial justice.** Because Mercury Drug referred to exhibits and transcripts, the court found compliance sufficient.

The central issue was whether Mercury Drug and its pharmacist exercised the degree of care required in dispensing medicine. The Court cited numerous cases to emphasize the high standard of care required. It noted that pharmacists must exercise the highest degree of prudence to avoid substituting harmful substances for harmless ones.

“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 dispensing medications, even an innocent mistake could have disastrous effects. The court referenced past cases, including United States v. Pineda. The victim’s horses were fatally poisoned due to a pharmacist dispensing the wrong drug. As well, Mercury Drug Corporation v. Baking underscored the grave consequences of misreading a prescription.

The court emphasized the doctrine of respondeat superior, meaning that an employer is presumed negligent when an employee’s negligence causes injury. It means that **Mercury Drug failed to overcome the presumption of negligence** by adequately showing the care and diligence expected of them.

Article 2180 of the Civil Code states that the responsibility shall cease when the persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage.

The Court ultimately held that Mercury Drug and Ganzon failed to meet the required standard of care. In the purchase of drugs, the buyer relies on the seller’s expertise and honesty. It’s also because examination would not avail the purchaser anything, as the customer can know nothing.

While affirming the liability of Mercury Drug, the Supreme Court found the trial court’s award of damages excessive. Moral and exemplary damages were reduced, taking into account the particular facts of the case. Moral damages were reduced to P50,000.00 and exemplary damages to P25,000.00.

The Court affirmed that drugstores, especially large chains like Mercury Drug, are imbued with public interest. The court can not tolerate negligence. And, it will not countenance the cavalier manner Mercury Drug treated De Leon, as a pharmacy owes a customer a duty of reasonable care, including according one with respect.

FAQs

What was the central ruling in this case?	The Supreme Court ruled that pharmacists must exercise the highest degree of care when dispensing medication, and mistakes constitute negligence. Therefore, diligence isn’t a sufficient defense.
Why was Mercury Drug found liable?	Mercury Drug was found liable because its pharmacist assistant dispensed ear drops instead of the prescribed eye drops. That constitutes a failure to meet the high standard of care required in the pharmacy profession.
What is the legal basis for holding the employer responsible?	The legal basis is the doctrine of respondeat superior, which presumes negligence on the part of the employer when an employee’s actions cause injury. This doctrine shifts the burden to the employer to prove they exercised due diligence.
What does “highest degree of care” mean for pharmacists?	It means pharmacists must use the utmost prudence and diligence when dispensing medications. In particular, to ensure the right drug is given to the patient.
Did the Supreme Court consider De Leon’s negligence?	While Mercury Drug argued that De Leon should have checked the label, the Court emphasized that buyers rely on the expertise of pharmacists. In particular, buyers ensure they receive the correct medication.
Were the damages awarded by the lower court changed?	Yes, the Supreme Court deemed the initial award of damages excessive. So, it reduced the moral damages from P100,000.00 to P50,000.00 and the exemplary damages from P300,000.00 to P25,000.00.
What is the significance of this ruling for public interest?	The ruling underscores that drugstores are businesses affected by public interest. It sends a message that these entities must maintain the highest level of diligence to ensure patient safety.
What should a customer do if they receive the wrong medication?	A customer should immediately consult their doctor or pharmacist. Report the incident to the drugstore for appropriate action and to prevent future errors.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision serves as a stern reminder to pharmacies and pharmacists. It highlights that they operate under a heightened duty of care to protect public health. The ruling emphasizes the need for strict adherence to dispensing protocols. Furthermore, it provides recourse for individuals harmed by pharmacy negligence.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: MERCURY DRUG CORPORATION VS. RAUL DE LEON, G.R. No. 165622, October 17, 2008