Title
Pepsi Cola Products vs. Patan, Jr.
Case
G.R. No. 152927
Decision Date
Jan 14, 2004
Pepsi's "Number Fever" promo led to non-winning "349" crown claims; SC ruled no fault or negligence, denying P500 equity award to respondents.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 152927)

Case Background

The case originates from a promotional campaign launched in 1991 by Pepsi Cola Products (Philippines), Inc. called the "Number Fever," aimed at incentivizing consumers to participate by searching for specific winning crowns on its soft drink products. This campaign, approved and monitored by the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), involved numbers affixed to crowns, with the winning combinations carefully selected and stored in a safety deposit box. On May 25, 1992, the company announced a number combination, which led to a surge of claims from individuals holding non-winning caps. In a bid to quell unrest stemming from these claims, Pepsi offered ₱500 for non-winning crowns, which 490,116 participants accepted.

Legal Proceedings

Respondents Patan, Jr., Apanto, Jr., Pongcol, and Pestano rejected the goodwill offer and instead filed complaints against Pepsi seeking specific performance and recovery of alleged prizes. The cases were consolidated and, following a trial, the Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaints due to lack of cause of action. The respondents appealed this decision, but two failed to pay docket fees, leading to the abandonment of their appeals. Ultimately, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's findings, concluding that the respondents did not win; however, it awarded ₱500 to each of them based on equity.

Petitioner’s Allegations

Pepsi contested the appellate court's decision, arguing that it deviated from established jurisprudence by granting ₱500 to the respondents despite the finding that they were not at fault or negligent. Furthermore, Pepsi highlighted that the Court of Appeals had granted relief to parties whose appeals were not perfected, which contravened prevailing legal principles regarding res judicata and stare decisis.

Court's Finding on Appeals

The Supreme Court agreed with Pepsi’s position regarding the appeals. It noted that the Court of Appeals had acknowledged the abandonment of appeals by Apanto and Pongcol due to non-payment of fees. Thus, the Court of Appeals erred in awarding relief to respondents who failed to perfect their appeals, which should have precluded them from obtaining any affirmative relief.

Rejection of Equity Argument

The Court also rejected the notion that equity provided a proper basis for awarding ₱500 to respondent Patan, Jr. Unlike the large num

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.