Case Digest (G.R. No. 167866)
Facts:
Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Incorporated, and Pepsico, Incorporated v. Pepe B. Pagdanganan, and Pepito A. Lumajan, G.R. No. 167866, October 16, 2006, the Supreme Court First Division, Chico-Nazario, J., writing for the Court. For review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, petitioners sought reversal of the Court of Appeals' 13 February 2004 Decision and 26 April 2005 Resolution in CA-G.R. CV No. 68290, which had reversed the Regional Trial Court's 3 August 2000 Decision and 23 August 2000 Order in Civil Case No. 62726.The petitioners are Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc. (PCPPI) and Pepsico, Inc. (Pepsico); the respondents are Pepe B. Pagdanganan and Pepito A. Lumajan. In 1992 petitioners ran a DTI‑approved promotional campaign called “Number Fever” for select soft‑drink brands, using specially marked crowns and resealable caps that bore a three‑digit number, a seven‑digit alphanumeric security code, and a prize denomination. Petitioners engaged D.G. Consultores to preselect winning three‑digit numbers and matching security codes; the master lists were placed in a bank vault per DTI conditions.
The promo ran from 17 February 1992 and was extended to 12 June 1992. On 25 May 1992 petitioners announced “349” as the winning number for 26 May 1992. That night petitioners learned many claimants presented crowns with number “349” but bearing security codes L‑2560‑FQ and L‑3560‑FQ, which did not match the security codes on the preselected winning list. Petitioners announced that authentic 349 crowns (as per the master list) would be redeemed at full value but that some 349 crowns with the codes L‑2560‑FQ and L‑3560‑FQ were not winning crowns; as a goodwill gesture petitioners offered to redeem such non‑winning 349 crowns for P500 each until 12 June 1992.
On 9 July 1992 respondent Pagdanganan demanded payment for seven crowns he held (four 7‑Up and two Mirinda crowns each showing P1,000,000 and one 7‑Up showing P100,000), all bearing security code L‑2560‑FQ; respondent Lumahan likewise demanded payment for two 7‑Up crowns showing P1,000,000 and P100,000. Petitioners refused. The respondents filed a complaint for Sum of Money and Damages before the RTC of Pasig City (Civil Case No. 62726).
After trial the RTC, in a 3 August 2000 Decision, dismissed the complaint for failure to establish a cause of action but ordered petitioners to pay Pagdanganan P3,500 and Lumahan P1,000 as goodwill compensation; the RTC held that the matching security code in the master list was indispensable to establish a winning crown. The RTC denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration on 23 August 2000. Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals.
On 13 February 2004 the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC, ordering petitioners to pay Pagdanganan P5,000,000 and Lumahan P1,200,000; it reasoned that the security code was not an express requirement to win and that petitioners had imposed an additional requirement to evade paying numerous claimants. The Court of Appeals denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration on 26 ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Are petitioners estopped from invoking stare decisis?
- Are the decisions in Rodrigo, Mendoza, Patan and De Mesa binding on the parties here though respondents were not parties in those cases?
- Did respondents raise issues in this case that were not previously resolved in Rodrigo, Mendoza, Patan or De Mesa?
- Are the Senate and DTI task force reports controlling or otherwise relevant to overcome the prior judicial rulings?
- May respondents seek affirmative relief (the larger cash awards) even though they did...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)