Manny Pacquiao coming to Silliman University

It's good to hear Manny Pacquiao, the country's national boxing pride is going to Silliman University in Dumaguete City.
He is not going to continue his studies there.
He will be guest during the Silliman U's Founder's Day festivities.
According to Marv Dumon in his article in examiner.com Pacquiao, who represents the province of Saranggani in the House of Representatives, will be guest of Silliman Univesity's College of Law founding anniversary on
Auguest 26.
I got this confirmation also from Atty. Lester Nuique, president of the Silliman University College of Law Alumni (SULAW).
On August 26, 2010 at 10 o'clock in the morning, Rep. Manny Pacquiao will be the speaker in the University convocation at the Luce Auritorium.
In the afternoon, Pacquiao will be the inspirational speaker during the Silliman law alumni fellowship at 4:00 p.m. at the Villareal Hall.
Pacquiao is slated to spend the night in Dumaguete.
He visits Silliman before he leaves for the United States, Dumon in his article added.
It's good to hear Pacquiao is coming to Dumaguete City.
He will learn that Duamguete City has a rich boxing history.
Development of young amateur boxing potentials goes a long way back, spearheaded by the Amateur Boxing Association of Negros Oriental (ABANO).
One boxing local has already fought in the international scene, Jimrex Jaca, who hails from Sibulan.
There are quite a number of boxing potentials in Dumaguete City.

Justice on Wheels rolls in Dumaguete

August 8 , 2010---One of the most successful, innovative solutions to declog the court dockets is the Supreme Court’s Justice on Wheels program.
Yesterday, Justice on Wheels rolled in Dumaguete and conducted hearings at the premises of the Hall of Justice.
Yesterday, there were thirteen promulgation of cases, and nine mediated cases.
A total of twenty two cases were immediately acted upon, under the Justice on Wheels program.
This is according to Atty. Cory Perez, branch 41 clerk, and acting assistant clerk of court.
The Justice on Wheels program was supervised no less than by the project’s chief implementer Senior Deputy Court Administrator Nimfa Cuesta--Vilches.
Vilches was Vice Chair of the committee on Justice on Wheels of the Supreme Court.
She is also a former judge having been first appointed at age 32 in Leyte.
She graduated law from the Ateneo de Manila in 1982.
Also on hand to facilitate the conduct of Justice on Wheels was Dumaguetena judge who is now assistant court administrator Jenny Lind Aldecoa-Delorino.
Jenny Lind, a former judge in Dumaguete and Makati City, graduated from Silliman University.
The Justice on Wheels came from Ilo-ilo, Bacolod and will proceed to Cebu.
Under the Justice on Wheels program, court hearings can now be held in busses that move from one place to another.
These moving court salas will conduct court proceedings specially on those areas where movement of cases are dragging for one reason or another.
There are places where there are not enough judges, prosecutors, public defenders.
There are places where cases actually need only to be mediated to be resolved, including problems about domestic relations.
There are places where many of the people need basic information on their rights.
This is where the Justice on Wheels can fill the gap, and bring justice closer to the people and the marginalized.
The Justice on Wheels program, implemented during the stewardship of retired Chief Justice Renato S. Puno, fulfills a constitutional guarantee that “adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty.”
The main components of the Justice on wheels are: (1) docket and jail decongestion through mobile court hearings; (2) mobile court-annexed mediation; (3) free legal aid; (4) information dissemination about the rights of the marginalized.
Believe it or not, the Justice on Wheels also offers medical and dental missions, aside from dispensing justice.
I’ve been to these busses before.
They are air conditioned. The interior resembles a court sala.
The Justice on Wheels program was adopted after it was showcased in Guatemala.
There was a big bus, partitioned into an office of the judge, a room for clerical staff, and rooms for prosecution and mediation.
It was seen as a practical solution to speed up case disposition.

Mercury Drug strikes three

I don’t know what’s with my favorite drug store, Mercury Drug Corporation, owner of the country’s largest drug store chain.
For three times it has been penalized by the courts for endangering peoples’ lives when its employees negligently gave the wrong drug to its customers.

Most recent incident

Very recently Mercury Drug Corporation was fined by the court of appeals P100,000 when its employee in its Sucat branch gave a customer an anti-convulsion drug “Dilantin”, instead of “Benadryl”, an anti-alergy medicine.
The customer Alma Garcia said she purchased six Benadryl capsules from the concerned branch for her daughter Amanda Hazel, who later complained of abdominal discomfort, irregular bowel movement, and inability to sleep.
Amanda was later diagnosed as suffering from toxicity due to Dilantin intake, and was forced to quit school.
This is not the first time that Mercury Drug Corporation was found negligent by the courts for issuing a wrong drug to its customers.

First incident

The first time almost claimed the life of its customer.
On November 25, 1993 Sebastian Baking was prescribed by his doctor the drug called “Diamicron” (for his blood sugar).
When Baking went to Mercury drug to buy the medicine, he was given instead “Dormicum”, a potent sleeping tablet.
On the third day that Baking took the wrong medicine, he drove his car.
He fell asleep while driving.
As a result he met an accident when his car collided with another vehicle.
Baking suspected that his medicine may have had an effect in his physical state while driving.
To the shock of his doctor, it was discovered that Baking has been taking the wrong medicine.
Baking sued Mercury Drug Corp and its employee.

Second incident

Apparently unperturbed, the next victim of Mercury Drug’s negligence was no less than a judge.
Judge Raul De Leon, presiding judge of Paranaque, had red eyes in 1999. He had difficulty reading.
His doctor prescribed him “Cortisporin Opthalmic” and “Ceftin” to relieve his eyes.
The following morning, judge De Leon went to the Betterliving, Parañaque, branch of Mercury Drug Store Corporation to buy the prescribed medicines.
At his chambers, De Leon requested his sheriff to assist him in using the eye drops.
As instructed, the sheriff applied 2-3 drops on the judge's left eye. Instead of relieving his irritation, the judge felt searing pain.
He immediately rinsed the affected eye with water, but the pain did not subside.
Only then did he discover that he was given the wrong medicine, “Cortisporin Otic Solution.”
De Leon returned to the same Mercury Drug branch, with his left eye still red and teary. When he confronted the sales lady Ganzon why he was given ear drops, instead of the prescribed eye drops, she did not apologize and instead brazenly replied that she was unable to fully read the prescription.
In fact, it was her supervisor who apologized and informed De Leon that they do not have stock of the needed Cortisporin Opthalmic.
De Leon wrote Mercury Drug, through its president, Ms. Vivian K. Askuna, about the day’s incident. It did not merit any response.
Instead, two sales persons went to his office and informed him that their supervisor was busy with other matters. Having been denied his simple desire for a written apology and explanation, De Leon filed a complaint for damages against Mercury Drug.
Denying that they were negligent, Mercury Drug and Ganzon pointed out that De Leon’s own negligence was the proximate cause of his injury.
They argued that any injury would have been averted had De Leon exercised due diligence before applying the medicine on his eye.
Had he cautiously read the medicine bottle label, he would have known that he had the wrong medicine, Mercury Drug argued.

Ruling of the court

The Supreme Court ruled that Mercury Durg Corporation is liable together with its employees.

Presumption of employer’s negligence

There was a presumption that Mercury Drug Corp. did not exercise the proper diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees.
In cases where an injury is caused by the negligence of an employee, there instantly arises a presumption of law that there has been negligence on the part of the employer, either in the selection or supervision of one’s employees. This presumption may be rebutted by a clear showing that the employer has exercised the care and diligence of a good father of the family.
Mercury Drug failed to overcome such presumption.
In the Baking case, the Court ruled that obviously, Mercury Drug’s employee was grossly negligent in selling to Baking “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, the court said
She should have verified whether the medicine she gave respondent was indeed the one prescribed by his physician, the court said.
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 court said.

Proximate cause

The proximate cause of the accident was the gross negligence of the pharmacist who gave the wrong medicine to the customer, according to the court.

Pharmacy: Imbued with public interest
.
The Supreme Court ruled: “It is generally recognized that the drugstore business is imbued with public interest. This can not be more real for Mercury Drug, the country’s biggest drugstore chain”.
“This Court can not tolerate any form of negligence which can jeopardize the health and safety of its loyal patrons,” the Supreme Court said.
“Moreover, this Court will not countenance the cavalier manner it treated judge De Leon. Not only does a pharmacy owe a customer the duty of reasonable care, but it is also duty-bound to accord one with respect,” the court said.

My comments: tort or contract?

No question, the Supreme Court ruled correctly in holding Mercury Drug and its employee liable.
But I cannot agree with the court’s basis for holding Mercury drug liable.
In holding Mercury Drug liable in the Baking case, the Supreme Court invoked the law on torts.
The court cited Article 2176 of the civil code which states: “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…”
How the court implied the absence of a “pre-existing contractual relation” escapes me.
Does this not involve a contract of sale between Mercury Drug Corp. and the curtomer?
To my mind, the ruling should have be based on contractual breach, not quasi-delict or tort.

Impunity

What alarms me is that this is the third time that the court has to rule over the negligence of a drug store for giving the customer a wrong medicine.
The drug store apparently hasn’t learned its lesson.
Why? Because the penalty is miniscule.
The maximum award is only P100,000.00 despite the seriousness of the damage.
The Supreme Court merely awarded P50,000 moral damages and P25,000. exemplary damages.
This penalty is too small for such a serious damage.

Legislation needed.

To promote the public interest, may I kindly call on our congressmen/senators to enact a law that would criminalize the reckless giving of wrong medicines by drugs stores to its customers.
Lawmakers should look at the welfare of hapless citizens, specially senior citizens, and the not-very-literate, who may have difficulty reading ant-sized letters in medicine bottles.
The law should impose not only jail time, but in addition, a hefty penalty--- no less than P500,000, if I may suggest.
Perhaps, a local ordinance should be enacted also to immediately protect the locality.
The giving by a drug store of a wrong medicine is no less dangerous, and just as serious as a nurse administering or injecting the wrong drug to a patient.
Piligro ni

If gay teacher sexually molests student, school is primarily liable

A fourteen year old male student in one prominent Catholic school (name begins with "S") was sexually molested by a gay teacher.
The sexual molestation happened in the student’s bedroom while the teacher was conducting after-class tutorials.
The mother became uncomfortable when she noticed the child’s bedroom was locked while tutorial session were being conducted.
Mother’s instinct told her to command the house-helps to check from the window outside to see what was happening inside the bedroom.
The two house-helps came running back to the mother, shell-shocked as they actually witnessed the teacher’s mouth sucking the child’s penis while seated on the bed.
The teacher was reported to the police and was arrested and jailed.
The innocent child confessed that this had been happening several times already.
The mother’s question is whether the school---aside of course, from the teacher--- has any liability for what happened to the child.
The school was trying to explain to the mother that it had nothing to do with the incident because it happened outside the school premises.
Is the school correct?
No.
The school can be held civilly liable, even if it was done outside the school premises.
The fact that the incident happened outside the school is even irrelevant.
Article 218 of the Family Code provides that the school, its administrators and teachers, shall have special parental authority and responsibility over the minor child while under their supervision, instruction or custody.
Authority and responsibility shall apply to all authorized activities whether inside or outside the premises of the school.
The school likewise can be liable under the civil code.
The teacher is under the employ of the school.
The civil code provides that employers (in this case, the school) shall be liable for the damage caused by their employees (the teacher) acting within the scope of their assigned tasks.
The clause “within the scope of their assigned tasks” includes those acts by the teacher-employee, in furtherance of the interests of the school.
The crucial question is whether or not the teacher was, at the time of the incident, performing act in furtherance of his mater’s business.
It can hardly be debated that, conducting tutorial lessons by the teacher, is something in furtherance of the schools interest of providing quality education.
The fact that the teacher was merely conducting after-class tutorials, and not classroom instruction, does not relieve the school of the burden of rebutting the presumption that there was negligence in the selection and supervision of its teachers.
The complainants, the parents of the child-victim, need only establish the existence of the employer-employee relationship between the school and the erring teacher.
Also the complainants merely need to prove that the teacher was in an act not for an independent purpose of his own (tutorial), but in furtherance of the business of the school.
However, what merely arises is a presumption of negligence on the part of the school.
The school can rebut this presumption by proving that it observed the proper diligence under the circumstances.
The civil code provides that the responsibility of the employer (school) shall cease when it proves that it observed the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage.
The school’s proper diligence would mean diligence in the selection and supervision of its teachers.
Supervision includes formulation of suitable rules and regulation for the guidance of its teachers in conducting tutorials.
It also includes issuance of proper instructions intended for the protection of the public and persons with whom the school has contractual relations, through its teachers.
The school is expected to impose upon its employees the necessary discipline called for, in the performance of any act indispensable to the business and beneficial to the school.
If the school fails to rebut the presumption of negligence, the school will be primarily and solidarily liable with the teacher.
Needless to say, additionally, the teacher will be liable criminally under child abuse law (Republic Act 7610).
Imprisonment under the law ranges from 14 years to 40 years.
It is very important for parents to monitor the activities of their teenage children, even right in their own bedrooms.

LA Times features Dumagueteno’s pastry shop in US

A Dumagueteno family enterprise has successfully exported their local pastry business in the United States.
After thirty years, House of Silvanas, maker of the tastiest crunchy silvanas has reaped rave reviews from discriminating taste buds of American consumers.
The Los Angeles Times recently featured House of Silvanas bakeshop which has opened branches in Los Angeles and San Francisco.
The popular pastries traces its origins in a quiet kitchen at the corner of San Jose Street and Rizal Boulevard in Dumaguete.
It was the late Trinidad Teves-Sagarbarria (founder of San Rival) who crafted the recipe of the widely popular silvanas and other pastry products.
Trinidad then shared the recipes to daughter-in-law Mary Ann Demandante Sagarbarria, wife of Martin ‘Cholong’ Sagarbarria to make the delightful pastry products like silvanas and sans rival.
After a while, MaryAnn made some experiments and adjustments to the Silvanas products and added other cake products.
Mary Ann recalls she just baked cakes and made silvanas to close friends while they were living in Manila.
Friends enjoyed Mary Ann’s products and prodded her to open up a pastry shop.
Not long after, in 1978, Mary Ann Sagarbarria opened House of Silvanas in their home in San Lorenzo Makati.
Mary Ann was assisted in Manila by daughter Tricia Abregana.
Through the years, their home became the go-to pastry shop and was frequented by celebrities including Sharon Cuneta, Juan Miguel Salvador, who bought pastries in bulk.
Mary Ann later opened branches in malls in Metro Manila.
Soon, Mary Ann with daughter Kay and sons Manu and Don, with only US$15,000 capital, ventured to the United States and opened the first international branch of House of Silvanas in the city of Torrance.
Since, then House of Silvanas has received rave reviews from the American community.
Early this year, the Los Angeles Times ran a feature of House of Silvanas bakeshop, in its January 16 issue.
Here is that article by Miles Clements
(http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jan/06/food/la-fo-find6-2010jan06):

The Find: House of Silvanas offers colorful, classic Filipino cookies

Crisp, impossibly airy cookies served straight from the freezer, their centers stuffed with slick buttercream, seem almost Space Age. They're somehow both sturdy and weightless. They dissolve the second they touch your tongue. These otherworldly treats are silvanas, colorful and classic Filipino cookies that could easily be mistaken for oversized French macarons.
They're the namesake of House of Silvanas, a months-old sweets shop at the confluence of Silver Lake and Little Armenia. You won't find the place without some confusion -- it's but one of many stalls located inside Kusina, a surprisingly spacious cafeteria-style turo-turo joint where buffet trays are loaded with ruddy links of longganisa sausage and steaming cups of sinigang, a sour tamarind soup, serve as makeshift palate cleansers.
Never mind its humble surroundings -- House of Silvanas has a long, multi-generational history. Its cream-filled tradition began a world away in the Philippines, where Trining Teves-Sagarbarria's pastries were so popular that a business bloomed to satisfy demand. Those renowned recipes became heirlooms, passed down to daughter-in-law Mary Ann, who has now bestowed them upon her daughter Kathryn.
The first branch of House of Silvanas, like Teves-Sagarbarria's L.A. shop, was born out of necessity: Mary Ann launched it in 1995 after neighbors complained of the flood of customers overwhelming her metro Manila home.
An extended network of the Sagarbarria family tends to House of Silvanas' stateside branches, with dessert-driven relatives operating outposts in the Bay Area and the South Bay. Stand-alone stores in Torrance and Carson have come and gone, but the new stall inside Kusina marks a milestone: the bakery's first foray into Los Angeles proper.
Silvanas remain the bake shop's hallmark. The mystery of the cookies is revealed in their deconstruction: a layer of flavored buttercream is sandwiched between a pair of cashew-meringue wafers that are coated in microscopic cookie crumbs. The puck-sized indulgences are available in seven color-coded flavors: ube, buko-pandan, chocolate, strawberry, mango, mocha and plain buttercream.House of Silvanas in LA is at 4716 Fountain Ave ( www.houseofsilvanas.com )

In the photo above: Daughter Kay and Mery Ann Sagarbarria personally manage the US branches of House of Silvanas