THE UNITED STATES v.
SANTIAGO PINEDA,
G.R. No. L-12858
January 22, 1918
MALCOM, J.:
FACTS:
Feliciano Santos (Santos), having some sick horses, presented a copy of a prescription
obtained from Dr. Richardson, and which on other occasions Santos had given to his horses with
good results, at Pineda's drug store for filling. Santiago Pineda (Pineda), the defendant, is a
registered pharmacist. Under the supervision of Pineda, the prescription was prepared and returned
to Santos in the form of 6 papers marked Botica Pineda. Santos, under the belief that he had
purchased the potassium chlorate which he had asked for, put two of the packages in water the
doses to two of his sick horses. Another package was mixed with water for another horse, but was
not used. The two horses, to which had been given the preparation, died shortly afterwards.
Santos, thereupon, took the three remaining packages to the Bureau of Science for examination.
Drs. Peña and Darjuan, of the Bureau of Science, on analysis found that the packages contained not
potassium chlorate but barium chlorate. At the instance of Santos, the two chemists also went to
the drug store of the defendant and bought potassium chlorate, which when analyzed was found to
be barium chlorate. (Barium chlorate, it should be noted, is a poison; potassium chlorate is not.) Dr.
Buencamino, a veterinarian, performed an autopsy on the horses, and found that death was the
result of poisoning.
RTC: held Pineda liable
ISSUE:
Whether Pineda should be liable for negligence
RULING:
The profession of pharmacy, it has been said again and again, is one demanding care and
skill. The responsibility of the druggist to use care has been variously qualified as "ordinary care,"
"care of a special high degree," "the highest degree of care known to practical men." The "skill"
required of a druggist is denominated as "high" or "ample." In other words, 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.
The rule of caveat emptor cannot apply to the purchase and sale of drugs. The vendor and
the vendee do not stand at arms length as in ordinary transactions. An imperative duty is on the
druggist to take precautions to prevent death or serious injury to anyone who relies on his absolute
honesty and peculiar leaning. The nature of drugs is such that examination would not avail the
purchaser anything. Consequently, it must be that the druggist warrants that he will deliver the drug
called for.
In civil cases, the druggist is made liable for any injury approximately resulting from his
negligence. "Pharmacists or apothecaries who compound or sell medicines, if they carelessly label
a poison as a harmless medicine, and sent it so labeled into the market, are liable to all persons who,
without fault on their part, are injured by using it as such medicine, in consequence of the false
label; the rule being that the liability in such a case arises not out of any contract or direct privity
between the wrong-doer and the person injured, but out of the duty which the law imposes on him
to avoid acts in their nature dangerous to the lives of others." (Nat. Savings Bank vs. Ward [1879],
100 U. S., 195, following Thomas vs. Winchester [1852], 2 Seld. [N. Y.], 387.)
