Case Summary (G.R. No. 153063-70)
Facts of the Case
The controversy centers around a promotional campaign run from February 17 to May 8, 1992, in which bottle caps bearing specific numbers were used as entries. A consulting firm, D.G. Consultores, was engaged to determine winning numbers through a random selection method approved by the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). Initially, 1,000 numbers were seeded, with 60 identified as winners. Due to the campaign's success, an extension was granted, leading to an announcement of "349" as a winning number. However, a subsequent communication from a marketing manager indicated a mistake in the announcement related to security code issues, leading PCPPI not to honor the claims associated with that number.
Initial Complaints and Judicial Proceedings
Following the announcement issue, numerous holders of the number "349" filed complaints for specific performance and damages against PCPPI and PepsiCo. These cases included Mendoza v. Pepsi-Cola Products, which was eventually dismissed by the RTC, and Rodrigo v. Pepsi-Cola Products, which also faced a similar fate upon appeal. The petitioners, in filing their complaints, sought to adopt testimonies and documentary evidence previously submitted in earlier cases and subsequently requested to archive their cases until the resolutions of the Mendoza and Rodrigo appeals.
Motion to Dismiss and RTC Ruling
Upon the finality of the Rodrigo case on February 5, 2002, the respondents filed a motion to dismiss the petitioners’ complaints on the grounds of stare decisis, arguing that the underlying facts and legal issues were the same as those dealt with in Mendoza and Rodrigo. The RTC granted this motion, asserting that applying the principle of stare decisis was warranted as the legal rights, the relations of parties, and the substantive issues mirrored earlier adjudicated cases.
Petitioners' Arguments and Respondents' Counterarguments
In their petition for review, the petitioners argued against the applicability of res judicata, claiming no identity of parties existed between their complaints and those in the Mendoza and Rodrigo decisions. They contended that the dismissal was premature due to a prior agreement to await the decisions on the other cases and sought a reevaluation of the promotion's contractual terms. Conversely, the respondents maintained that the complaints were guided by the same factual and legal grounds as
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 153063-70)
Overview of the Case
- The case involves a petition for review on certiorari of an Order dated April 18, 2002, from the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 142, regarding Civil Cases Nos. 94-2414 to 94-2421.
- The RTC granted the motion to dismiss filed by respondents based on the principle of stare decisis.
Factual Background
- Petitioners are holders of soft drink bottle caps with the number "349," which they believed to be a winning combination in a contest sponsored by respondents.
- Respondent Pepsi Cola Products Phils., Inc. (PCPPI) is a domestic corporation involved in the production and distribution of carbonated drinks, while respondent PEPSICO, Inc. is a foreign corporation and major stockholder of PCPPI.
- D.G. Consultores, a Mexican consulting firm, was engaged to pre-select winning numbers for the promotion, with oversight from the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI).
- The initial promotional period ran from February 17 to May 8, 1992, where 1,000 numbers were seeded, including 60 winning numbers.
- Following the initial success, the promotion was extended, and on May 25, 1992, "349" was announced as a winning number.
- Subsequently, PCPPI's Marketing Services Manager reported a mistake regarding the announcement of "349" as a winning number, leading to numerous complaints from holders of the "349" caps.
Procedural History
- Initial complaints for specific per