Case Digest (G.R. No. 150394)
Facts:
Pepsi Cola Products (Phils.), Inc. v. Efren Espiritu, Lourdes Crisostomo, Aurora Buenaventura, Armando Enriquez, Jane Geronimo, and Victorino Alcano, G.R. No. 150394, June 26, 2007, the Supreme Court First Division, Garcia, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Pepsi Cola Products (Philippines), Inc. (PCPPI) was the local franchisee and bottler that conducted the "Number Fever" promotional campaign in 1992 after obtaining approval from the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). The promotion entailed preselected three-digit winning numbers and matching security codes that were deposited in a UCPB safety-deposit box opened only by two keys (one held by DTI, one by PCPPI). The winning numbers were announced daily and winners presenting crowns with the announced number and correct security code were paid.
On May 25, 1992 the number 349 was announced; thousands of holders presented crowns bearing 349 but many displayed a security code (L-2560-FQ) that did not match the codes in the deposited list. PCPPI initially recalled 349, later opened the safety-deposit box and re-announced the authorized security codes for 349. PCPPI refused to pay holders of 349 crowns bearing security code L-2560-FQ; instead it offered P500 per non-winning 349 crown as a goodwill payment, which about 486,170 persons accepted (aggregate P240 million). Several holders, including the herein respondents, rejected the goodwill payment, formed the Ugnayan 349 Association, and sent demand letters to PCPPI.
When demands were not satisfied, respondents and other holders filed suit (Civil Case No. Q-92-13950) for collection of the prize and damages before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Quezon City, on November 9, 1992. In a decision dated June 24, 1996 the RTC declared the plaintiffs not entitled to their crowns but nonetheless awarded each plaintiff P10,000 as moral damages.
Three respondents (Enriquez, Alcano and Geronimo) and defendant PCPPI separately appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), consolidated and docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 54604. In a decision dated July 3, 2001 the CA likewise held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to the prize but increased the moral damages to P30,000 each and added a collective attorney’s fee of P30,000. The CA denied PCPPI’s motion for reconsideration in a resolution dated October 16, 2001.
PCPPI filed this petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA’s award of moral damages and attorney’s fees. The Supreme Court noted that the present suit was one of several arising from the same "Pepsi 349" incident and that final rulings in related cases—Mendoza v. PCPPI and PCI (G.R. No. 1531...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in awarding moral damages and attorney’s fees to the respondents?
- Were the respondents entitled to the cash amounts printed on their 349 crowns bearing the security cod...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)