Mercury Drug Corporation vs.

Sebastian Baking
(Torts Proximate Cause)

Facts:
Respondent Sebastian Baking went to the clinic of Dr. Cesar Sy for a medical check-up.
Subsequently, after several tests, Dr. Sy prescribed two medical prescriptions Diamicron for
his blood Sugar and Benalize tablets for his triglyceride.
Respondent then proceeded to petitioner Mercury Drug Store (MDC) to buy the prescribed
medicines. However, the saleslady misread the prescription for Diamicron for Dormicrum a
potent sleeping tablet.
Unaware of the mistake, Respondent took it for three consecutive days. On the third day, he
figured in a vehicular accident. His car collided with another car driven by one Josie Peralta. It
turned out that Respondent fell asleep while driving and has no idea regarding the accident.
Suspecting that the tablet he took may have caused the accident, he returned to Dr. Sy and the
latter was shocked because of the wrong medicine sold to his patient.
Respondent thereafter filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) complaint for damages against
petitioner.
The RTC ruled in favour of the plaintiff; decision of which was affirmed in toto by the Court of
Appeals. Hence this present petition.

Issue:
Whether or not petitioner was negligent, if so, whether such negligence was the proximate
cause of respondents accident?

Ruling:
YES.
Article 2176 of the New Civil Code provides that 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 re-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-
delict.

The Court also enumerated the three (3) elements of Quasi-delict, to wit:
1. Damage suffered by the plaintiff;
2. Fault or negligence of the defendant
3. Connection of the cause and effect between the fault or negligence of the defendant and the
damage incurred by the plaintiff
The Court stressed that 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 the drugstore employees will not exercise the highest
degree of care and diligence.
That petitioners employee was grossly negligent. The care required must be commensurate
with the danger involved, and the skill employed must correspondent with the superior
knowledge of the business which the law demands.
Hence, the Court sustained that the proximate cause of the accident was the petitioners
employees negligence. The vehicular accident could have not occurred had the employee been
careful to his job.

Calalas v Court of Appeals & Eliza Sunga

(Torts Proximate Cause)

Facts:

Private Respondent Eliza Saunga took a passenger jeepney owned and operated by
Petitioner Vicente Calalas. As the jeepney was already full, she was just given an
extension seat, a wooden stool, at the rear end of the vehicle.

On the way, the jeepney stopped to let a passenger off. Since Sunga was seated at the
rear end, she gave way to the outgoing passenger. Just as she was doing so, an Isuzu
Elf Truck driven by Igclerio Verena and owned by Francisco Salva, bumped to the left
rear end of the jeepney. This incident cause injury to Sunga.

She filed a compliant for damages against Calalas on the ground of breach of contract
of carriage. On the other hand, Calalas filed a third-party complaint against Salva, the
owner of the truck.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Salva guilty and absolved Calalas from liability
holding that it was the truck owner who is responsible for the accident based on quasi-
delict.

However, on appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA), the appellate court reversed the
RTCs decision, on the ground that Sungas cause of action was based on a breach of
contract of carriage and not on quasi-delict.

Hence, this appeal from Calalas.

ISSUE: Whether or not the negligence of the truck driver as the proximate cause of the
accident which negates petitioners liability?

RULING:

No.

First, the issue in this case is the liability under contract of carriage.

In this case, the petitioner failed to transport his passenger safely to his destination as a
common carrier in violation of Arts. 1733 and 1755 of the New Civil Code.

Moreso, there is no basis that the ruling of the RTC binds Sunga. It is immaterial that
the proximate cause of the collision was the truck driver, because the doctrine of
proximate cause applies only to cases of quasi-delict.

The doctrine of proximate cause is a device for imputing liability to a person where there
is no relation between him and another party. But in the case at bar, there is a pre-
existing relation between petitioner and respondent in their contract of carriage. Hence,
upon happening of the accident, the presumption of negligence at once arose on
Calalas part, which makes him liable.