Pharmacists' Negligence: The High Standard of Care in Dispensing Medicine

A judge with an irritated eye walked into a Mercury Drug branch with a prescription for eye drops. He walked out with ear drops. The searing pain that followed led to a landmark ruling on the standard of care required of pharmacists and drugstores in the Philippines.

In Mercury Drug Corporation v. De Leon (G.R. No. 165622, October 17, 2008), the Supreme Court affirmed that a druggist's mistake is negligence, and carelessness in dispensing medicine cannot be excused by shifting blame to the customer. The case reminds every pharmacy professional that dispensing medicine demands the highest degree of care known to practical men.

What Happened

In October 1999, Judge Raul De Leon consulted a doctor friend about his red, irritated left eye. The doctor prescribed "Cortisporin Ophthalmic" (eye drops) and "Ceftin." The next morning, De Leon went to a Mercury Drug branch in Parañaque and handed the prescription to pharmacist assistant Aurmela Ganzon.

Ganzon handed him a bottle of "Cortisporin Otic Solution"—ear drops. When De Leon applied the drops to his eye, he felt searing pain. He rinsed his eye, but the pain persisted. He returned to the store, where Ganzon admitted she could not fully read the prescription. Her supervisor apologized and said they had no stock of the prescribed eye drops.

De Leon asked for a written apology and explanation. Mercury Drug ignored his letter. He filed a complaint for damages.

The Issue

Was Mercury Drug and its employee negligent in dispensing the wrong medicine, and if so, what damages should be paid?

The Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of De Leon, holding that Mercury Drug and Ganzon were grossly negligent. The Court reduced the trial court's awards—moral damages from P100,000 to P50,000, and exemplary damages from P300,000 to P25,000—but affirmed liability.

The standard of care. The Court cited the long-standing rule from United States v. Pineda (37 Phil. 456, 1918): "For the druggist, mistake is negligence and care is no defense." Pharmacists must exercise "the highest degree of care known to practical men," because a fatal mistake could be a matter of life and death for a patient.

No shifting the blame. Mercury Drug argued that De Leon was negligent for not reading the label before using the drops. The Court rejected this. In the purchase and sale of drugs, buyer and seller do not stand at arm's length. A customer relies on the druggist's expertise and cannot be expected to examine a compound he knows nothing about. The druggist warrants that he will deliver the drug called for.

Employer liability. Under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, employers are liable for damages caused by their employees acting within the scope of their tasks. A presumption of negligence arises against the employer when an employee causes injury; the employer must prove it exercised the diligence of a good father of a family. Mercury Drug failed to overcome this presumption.

The procedural side. The Court of Appeals had dismissed Mercury Drug's appeal for lack of page references in its brief. The Supreme Court held this dismissal was discretionary, not mandatory, and the brief substantially complied with the rules. But even after setting aside the technical dismissal, the Court still found the drugstore liable on the merits.

Practical Takeaways

• Dispensing errors are negligence per se. A pharmacist who gives the wrong medicine cannot defend by claiming an honest mistake. The law demands the highest degree of care and vigilance.
• Customers are not expected to second-guess the pharmacist. A buyer of medicine relies on the druggist's expertise. The druggist warrants that the medicine delivered is the one prescribed.
• Employers are vicariously liable. Drugstores must exercise diligence in selecting and supervising employees. A presumption of negligence arises when an employee's error causes injury.
• Refuse when uncertain. If a prescription is unclear or the prescribed medicine is unavailable, the pharmacist should verify with the prescriber or refuse the sale—not substitute a similar-sounding product.
• Damages can be substantial. Victims of dispensing errors may recover moral and exemplary damages, which serve as a warning to the drugstore industry, which is imbued with public interest.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.