You are on page 1of 12

9/4/2016

G. R. No. 167866

FIRSTDIVISION

PEPSICOLA
PRODUCTS
PHILIPPINES,
INCORPORATED,andPEPSICO,
INCORPORATED,
Petitioners,

versus

PEPE B. PAGDANGANAN, and


PEPITOA.LUMAJAN,
Respondents.

G.R.No.167866

Present:

PANGANIBAN,C.J.,
YNARESSANTIAGO,
AUSTRIAMARTINEZ,
CALLEJO,SR.,
CHICONAZARIO,JJ.

Promulgated:

October12,2006

xx

DECISION

CHICONAZARIO,J.:
TheCase

For review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, as amended, is the 13 February
[1]
[2]
2004Decision and26June2005Resolution oftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.CV
[3]
No. 68290, reversing and setting aside the 3 August 2000 Decision and 23 August
[4]
[5]
2000 OrderoftheRegionalTrialCourtofPasigCity,Branch163, inCivilCaseNo.
62726.

TheFacts

[6]
This case stemmed from a Complaint filed by herein respondents Pepe B.
Pagdanganan(Pagdanganan)andPepitoA.Lumahan(Lumahan)againsthereinpetitioners
PepsiCola Products Philippines, Incorporated (PCPPI) and PEPSICO, Incorporated
(PEPSICO)on22December1992,beforetheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC)ofPasigCity,
Branch163,forSumofMoneyandDamages.

The facts are beyond dispute.As culled from the records of the case, they are as
follows:

Petitioners PCPPI and PEPSICO launched a Department of Trade and Industry


(DTI) approved and supervised underthecrown promotional campaign entitled Number
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/october2006/167866.htm

1/12

9/4/2016

G. R. No. 167866

Fever sometime in 1992. With said marketing strategy, it undertook to give away cash
prizes to holders of specially marked crowns and resealable caps of PEPSICOLA
softdrink products, i.e., Pepsi, 7Up, Mirinda and Mountain Dew. Specially marked
crownsandresealablecapsweresaidtocontaina)athreedigitnumber,b)asevendigit
alphanumericsecuritycode,andc)theamountofthecashprizeinanyofthefollowing
denominationsP1,000.00P10,000.00P50,000.00P100,000.00andP1,000,000.00.

Petitioners PCPPI and PEPSICO engaged the services of D.G. Consultores, a


Mexican consultancy firm with experience in handling similar promotion in other
countries, to randomly preselect 60 winning threedigit numbers with their matching
security codes out of 1000 threedigit numbers seeded in the market, as well as the
correspondingartworksappearingonawinningcrownand/orresealablecap.

The mechanics of the Number Fever promo was simple From Monday to Friday,
starting17February1992to8May1992,petitionersPCPPIandPEPSICOwillannounce,
[7]
onnationalandlocalbroadcastandprintmedia,arandomlypreselected winningthree
digit number. All holders of specially marked crowns bearing the winning threedigit
numberwillwinthecorrespondingamountprintedonsaidcrownsand/orresealablecaps.

On account of the success of the promotional campaign, petitioners PCPPI and


PEPSICO extended or stretched out the duration of the Number Fever for another five
weeksoruntil12June1992.

Fortheextendedperiod,petitionersPCPPIandPEPSICOagainsoughttheservices
of D.G. Consultores to preselect 25 winning threedigit numbers with their matching
securitycodesaswellasthecorrespondingartworkstoappearonawinningcrownand/or
resealablecap.

On25May1992,petitionersPCPPIandPEPSICOannouncedthenotoriousthree
digitcombination349asthewinningnumberforthenextday,26May1992.Onthesame
nightoftheannouncement,however,petitionersPCPPIandPEPSICOlearnedofreports
that numerous people were trying to redeem 349 bearing crowns and/or resealable caps
withincorrectsecuritycodesL2560FQandL3560FQ.Uponverificationfromthelist
[8]
of the 25 preselected winning threedigit numbers, petitioners PCPPI and PEPSICO
and the DTI learned that the threedigit combination 349 was indeed the winning
combination for 26 May 1992 but the security codes L2560FQ and L3560FQ do not
correspondtothatassignedtothewinningnumber349.

Subsequently, petitioners PCPPI and PEPSICO issued a statement stating in part


that:

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/october2006/167866.htm

2/12

9/4/2016

G. R. No. 167866

DEARVALUEDCUSTOMERS

xxxx

Some349crownshavewinningsecuritycodesasperthelistheldinabankvault
bytheDepartmentofTradeandIndustryandwillberedeemedatfullvaluelikeallother
authenticatedwinningcrowns.

Someother349crownswhichhavesecuritycodesL2560FQandL3560FQare
notwinningcrowns.

However,asanactofgoodwilltoourcustomers,wewillredeemthenonwinning
349crownsforP500.00eachuntilJune12,1992atallPepsiplants&warehouses.

xxxx

Sincerely,

RODSALAZAR
President
PEPSICOLAPRODUCTSPHILS.,INC.

Despite the foregoing announcement, on 9 July 1992, respondent Pagdanganan


demanded from petitioners PCPPI and PEPSICO and the DTI the payment of the
[9]
corresponding cash prize of each of his 349 bearing crown, specifically, four 7Up
[10]
crownsandtwoMirinda
crowns, each displaying the cash prize ofP1,000,000.00in
[11]
additiontoone7Up
crownshowingthecashprizeofP100,000.00.Notably,allseven
crownsborethesecuritycodeL2560FQ.

For his part, respondent Lumahan similarly insisted that petitioners PCPPI and
PEPSICO pay him the cash value of his two winning crowns, that is, two 7Up crowns
with one exhibiting the cash value of P1,000,000.00 and the other the amount of
P100,000.00.

Petitioners PCPPI and PEPSICO refused to take heed of the aforementioned


demands.

Affrontedbytheseeminginjustice,respondentsPagdangananandLumahanfileda
[12]
collective complaint
for Sum of Money and Damages before the RTC of Pasig City,
Branch163,againstpetitionersPCPPIandPEPSICO.

After trial on the merits, the RTC rendered its decision on 3 August 2000, the
dispositivepartofwhichstatesthat:

WHEREFORE, for failure of the plaintiffs to establish a cause of action against


defendants,theinstantcaseisherebyDISMISSED.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/october2006/167866.htm

3/12

9/4/2016

G. R. No. 167866

ThedefendantsareherebyorderedtopayplaintiffsPagdangananandLumahanthe
amountsofP3,500.00andP1,000.00,respectively.

Withoutcosts.

SOORDERED.

Indismissingthecomplaint,theRTCratiocinatedthat:

The preponderance of evidence now on record does not appear to support the
assertionoftheplaintiffsthatnumber349withsecuritycodenumberL2560FQwonthe
Pepsicossalespromotion game forMay26,1992.While it is true that number 349 was
usedbothasawinningandnonwinningnumber,stillthewinning349musttallywiththe
correspondingsecuritycodecontainedinthemasterlistofwinningcrowns.

xxxx

xxx[a]mongthe349senumeratedinthelistofwinningcrowns(citationomitted)
aswinningnumberswere349V2421JC349A7963IS349B4860IG349C3984
RP 349 D5863CO 349 E3800EL 349 U3501MN (sic) and 349 U3246NP.
Nowhere to be found were nos. 349 L2560FQ and L3560FQ.This means that it was
notpossibleforbothdefendantstohavewonduringtheentireextendedperiodofthesales
promotionofPepsiColabecausethenumberdidnotappearinthemasterlist.Itwasmade
clear in the advertisements and posters put up by defendants that to win, the 3digit
number must be matched with the proper security code. The Department of Trade and
IndustryhadbeendulyinformedofthemechanicsofthePepsiColasalespromotionfor
theprotectionoftheinterestofthepublic.

Anent the award of P3,500.00 and P1,000.00 to respondents Pagdanganan and


Lumahan,respectively,theRTCjustifiedsuchgrant,bystatingtowit:

xxxsincethedefendantshavevoluntarilyannouncedtheirdesiretopayholdersof
capsorcrownsoftheirproductsbearingnonwinningnumber349asasignofgoodwill,
the Court feels that this privilege should also be extended to the plaintiffs despite the
institutionoftheinstantcase.

[13]
Their Partial Motion for Reconsideration
having been denied in an
[14]
Order
dated23August2000,respondentsPagdangananandLumahanappealed
theircasetotheCourtofAppeals.

[15]
InaDecision
promulgatedon13February2004,theCourtofAppealsreversed
andsetasidethedecisionoftheRTC,thefalloofwhichreads:

WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby GRANTED. The decision of the Regional


Trial Court of Pasig, Branch 163, in Civil Case No. 62726 is REVERSED. Defendants
appellantsareherebyORDEREDtopayplaintiffsappellantsPepePagdangananthesum
ofP5millionandPepitoLumahanthesumofP1.2million.

InaResolutiondated26April2005,theCourtofAppealsdeniedpetitionersPCPPI
andPEPSICOsMotionforReconsideration.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/october2006/167866.htm

4/12

9/4/2016

G. R. No. 167866

TheIssues

Hence,thispetitionforreviewoncertiorariunderRule45oftheRulesofCourt,as
[16]
amended,predicatedonthefollowingissues:

I.

WHETHERORNOTPETITIONERSAREESTOPPEDFROMRAISINGSTARE
DECISIS

II.

WHETHER OR NOT RODRIGO, MENDOZA, PATAN AND DE MESA ARE


BINDINGALTHOUGHRESPONDENTSWERENOTPARTIESTHEREIN

III.

WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENTS RAISE ANY ISSUE THAT HAS


NOTBEENPREVIOUSLYRESOLVEDINRODRIGO,MENDOZA,PATANOR
DEMESA

IV.

WHETHER OR NOT THE SENATEAND DTI TASK FORCE REPORTSARE


EVENRELEVANT,ORCONTROLLINGand

V.

WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENTS MAY SEEK AFFIRMATIVE RELIEF


WITHOUTHAVINGAPPEALED.

In essence, the present petition raises as fundamental issue for resolution by the
Courtthequestionofwhetherornottheinstantcaseisalreadybarredbyourrulingsinthe
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
casesofRodrigo,
Mendoza,
Patan
and,themostrecent,DeMesa.

TheCourtsRuling

In ordering petitioners PCPPI and PEPSICO to pay respondents Pagdanganan and


LumahantheamountsofP5,000,000.00andP1,200,000.00,theappellatecourtarticulated
that:

xx x [w]e fully agree with the contention of plaintiffsappellants that such deviation or
additional requirement, that is the winning crown must have a corresponding winning
securitycode,imposedbyPEPSIwasadeviationfromtherulesapprovedbyDTI.

xxxx

xxx[i]tappearedthatthematchingwinningsecuritywithcodeisnotanexpress
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/october2006/167866.htm

5/12

9/4/2016

G. R. No. 167866

requirementinordertowin.Takentogetherwithprintedpromomechanics,thismeansthat
oneisawinneraslongashehasinhispossessionthecrownwiththewinningnumber.
Thematchingwinningsecuritycodeisnotrequired.

Withthepromomechanicsastheguide,itisundisputablethatplaintiffsappellants
are very well entitled to the cash prizes indicated on their crowns. To deny their claim
despitetheircompliancewiththeunequivocalrequirementsofthepromotioniscontraryto
theprincipleofgoodfaith.

xxxx

ItishighlyinequitableforPEPSItoimposeanadditionalrequirementinorderto
winasawaytoevadetheunusuallylargenumberof349winnerclaimants.xxx.

Petitioners PCPPI and PEPSICO fault the appellate court for disregarding this
CourtspronouncementsinfourotherPepsi/349casesi.e.,Mendoza, Rodrigo, Patan and
DeMesathatthe349bearingcrownsand/orresealablecapswithsecuritycodesL2560
FQandL3560FQ,likethoseheldbyrespondentsPagdangananandLumahan,arenon
winningcrownsunderthetermsoftheNumberFeverpromo.Theyreckonthat,byvirtue
oftheprincipleofstaredecisis,theaforementionedcaseshavealreadysettledtheissueof
whetherornotpetitionersPCPPIandPEPSICOareliabletoholdersofnonwinning349
bearing crowns and/or resealable caps. Simply put, the principle of stare decisis should
havebeendeterminativeoftheoutcomeofthecaseatbar.Rodrigo,Mendoza,Patan and
De Mesa cases having ruled on the very same issues raised in the case at bar, they
constitutebindingjudicialprecedentsonhowPepsi/"349"litigationsmustbedisposedof.

On the other hand, respondents Pagdanganan and Lumahan justify the non
applicationoftheprincipleofstaredecisisbystatingthatitisrequiredthatthelegalrights
andrelationsoftheparties,andthefacts,andtheapplicablelaws,theissueandevidence
areexactlythesame,(sic)asthosedecidedinthecasesofRodrigo,Mendozaandlaterthe
[21]
deMesaxxx.
Theycontend,however,thatacomparisonofthesubjectcasesshow
thattheyarenotthesamenoridenticalxxxasevidentinthedifferentquestionsoflaw,
[22]
the findings of facts and evidence and issues involved in said cases x x x.
In fact,
respondentsPagdangananandLumahanparticularlyarguethatthebasisoftheiractionis
BreachofContractwhilethatoftheRodrigoandMendozacasesinvolvedcomplaintsfor
SpecificPerformance.

Thepetitionismeritorious.

There is no question that the cases of Mendoza, Rodrigo, Patan and De Mesa,
includingthecaseatbar,arosefromthesamesetoffactsconcerningtheNumberFever
promodebacleofpetitionersPCPPIandPEPSICO.Mendoza,Rodrigo,Patan,DeMesa,
Pagdanganan and Lumahan are among those holding supposedly winning 349 Pepsi/7
Up/Mirinda/MountainDewsoftdrinkcrownsand/orresealablecaps.Saidcrownsand/or
resealable caps were not honored or allowed to be cashed in by petitioners PCPPI and
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/october2006/167866.htm

6/12

9/4/2016

G. R. No. 167866

PEPSICO for failing to contain the correct security code assigned to such winning
combination.As a result, the rejected crown and/or resealable cap holders filed separate
complaintsforspecificperformance/sumofmoney/breachofcontract,withdamages,all
againstpetitionersPCPPIandPEPSICO.

A survey of said cases is imperative in order to determine whether or not the


principleofstaredecisiswill,indeed,bartherelitigationoftheinstantcase.

In 2001, in the case of Mendoza v. PepsiCola Products Phils., Inc. and Pepsico,
[23]
Inc.,
theRTCdismissedthecomplaintforspecificperformanceanddamagesagainst
[24]
herein petitioners PCPPI and PEPSICO. On appeal
with the Court of Appeals, the
latterdismissedtheappealforlackofmeritandaffirmedthedismissalofthecomplaint.It
rationalizedthat:

The mechanics for the Number Fever promo, both in the original period and for the
extension period, was duly approved by the DTI. Television, radio and print
advertisementsforthepromopassedthroughandwerebytheDTI.Postersexplainingthe
promo mechanics were posted all over the country and warning ads in newspapers
highlightedtheimportanceofthesecuritycode.Plaintiffappellantadmittedtohaveread
and understood the mechanics of the promo. His different interpretation of the security
codes function should not mean that PEPSI was grossly negligent. The mechanics were
clear. A winning number had its own unique, matching security code which must be
authenticatedbyPEPSIagainstitsofficiallist.Theimportanceofamatchingsecuritycode
had been adequately emphasized in the WarningAds (citation omitted) and in the new
campaignposters(citationomitted)duringtheextensionperiodbothofwhichwereduly
approvedbyDTI.

xxxx

Thefunctionofthesecuritycodeisnotlimitedtothedeterminationofwhetherornota
crown is tampered with or fake. It also serves to authenticate the winning number
combinationwhetherithadthecorrectalphanumericsecuritycodeuniquelyassignedto
each crown as appearing in PEPSIs official list. The campaign posters for the promo
periodFebruary17,1992toMay10,1992aswellasfortheextensionperiodfromMay
11, 1992 to June 12, 1992 uniformly enumerated three (3) essential elements of a
participatingwinningcrown,towit:(1)3digitwinningnumber(2)prizedenomination
and(3)7digitalphanumericsecuritycode.xxxThepromomechanicsstressedthatthe
3digit winning number combination must have an authenticated security code, which
securitycodewasuniquetoeverycrown.Thus,plaintiffappellants349crownmustalso
be measured against the essential elements of a winning participating crown pursuant to
thepromosmechanics.

xxxx

Thus, PEPSIs obligation to redeem plaintiffappellants 349 crown did not arise as his
crown did not bear the correct security code, a condition precedent to winning the
profferedprize.

A PetitionforReviewonCertiorariwasthenfiledwiththisCourt.InaResolutiondated
24July2002,wedeniedMendozaspetitionforreviewforfailingtoshowthattheCourtof
[25]
Appealscommittedreversibleerror.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/october2006/167866.htm

7/12

9/4/2016

G. R. No. 167866

Similarly, in 2002, in Rodrigo v. Pepsi Cola Products (Phils.), Inc. and Pepsico,
Inc.,theRTCthereindismissedthecomplaintforSpecificPerformanceandDamagesfiled
againsthereinpetitionersPCPPIandPEPSICO.TheCourtofAppealsthenaffirmedthe
dismissalofthecomplaint,statingthat:

To resolve the pivotal issue of whether the appellants are the real winners of the
promo, the various advertisements must be read together to give effect to all. From the
start of the promotion, Pepsi had highlighted the security code as a major component of
eachandeverycrown.Insubsequentposters,thecompaniesclarifieditsroleasameasure
against tampering or faking crowns. (sic), and emphasized the important role of the
securitycodeinidentifyingandverifyingtherealwinningcrown.InitsWarningCheaters
posters,thethirdparagraphsuccinctlyprovidesthat:

Thus if a supposed winning crown is presented to us where the


securitycodedoesnotmatchtherealsecuritycodeofthewinningnumber
as verified with our master list (known only to authorized personnel of
Pepsi and DTI), then we know that the Crown is either fake or tampered
with.(Citationomitted.)

Also(sic)thecompaniespublishedthat:

Everycrown/capwithawinningnumberandAuthenticatedsecurity
winstheamountprintedonthecrown/cap.(Citationomitted.)

Given said advertisements, the impression an ordinary consumer gets is that the
security code distinguishes the real or genuine from the fake winning crown, especially
considering the conditions surrounding their issuance i.e., that as early as March 1992,
various complaints of tampered crowns had reached the DTI. This construction is
bolsteredbythesubsequentreleaseoftheNUMBERFEVERMORECHANCESTOWIN
posters during the extension period wherein the security code is defined as a measure
against tampering or faking of crowns (citation omitted) and in the subsequent
advertisementswhichwarnedtheconsumingpublicthattheappelleecompanieswouldnot
honorunderanycircumstancesanyfakeortamperedcrown.(Citationomitted.)

The inescapable conclusion is that the crowns held by the appellants are not
winningcrowns.xxx.

Undaunted, Rodrigo went to this Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari but we
subsequentlydeniedhispetition,inaResolutiondated1October2001,forfailuretoshow
that a reversible error was committed by the Court of Appeals, hence the aforequoted
disquisitionwasaffirmed.

Promulgatedin2003,inPepsiColaProducts(Phils.)vs.Patan,Jr.,theRTCtherein
dismissed two consolidated complaints for specific performance and damages against
hereinpetitionersPCPPIandPEPSICOforlackofcauseofaction.TheCourtofAppeals
substantiallyaffirmedthefindingsofthetrialcourtthatthereinrespondentsdidnotwinin
thepetitionersNumberFeverpromotionalcampaignastheircrownswerenotthewinning
crowns. The appellate court, however, awarded therein respondents P500 each in the
interestofjustice.WhenthecasecametotheCourtbymeansofaPetitionforReviewon
Certiorari,thefindingthatthecorrectsecuritycodeisanindispensablerequirementtobe
entitled to the cash prize is concerned, was affirmed. The award of P500 though was
deletedasitwasourstancethattheofferofP500foreverynonwinning349crownhad
longexpiredon12June1992.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/october2006/167866.htm

8/12

9/4/2016

G. R. No. 167866

And, in the 2005 case of De Mesa v. Pepsi Cola Products Phils., Inc., the RTC
dismissedthecaseundertheprincipleofstaredecisis.Itelucidatedthattheinstantcase,as
wellasthe2001Mendoza case, not only are the legal rights and relations of the parties
substantially the same as those passed upon in the 2002 Rodrigo case, but the facts, the
applicable laws, the causes of action, the issues, and the testimonial and documentary
evidenceareidenticalsuchthatarulinginonecase,undertheprincipleofstaredecisis,is
a bar to any attempt to relitigate the same issue. Subsequently, De Mesa et al., filed a
PetitionforReviewonCertioraribeforeuschallengingtheapplicationoftheprincipleof
stare decisis to said case. In a Decision promulgated 19 August 2005, we denied their
recoursetothiscourtandaffirmedthedismissalofthecomplaint.Weheldthat:

In the instant case, the legal rights and relations of the parties, the facts, the
applicablelaws,thecausesofaction,theissues,andtheevidenceareexactlythesameas
those in the decided cases of Mendoza and Rodrigo, supra. Hence, nothing is left to be
argued.TheissuehasbeensettledandthisCourtsfinaldecisioninthesaidcasesmustbe
respected.ThisCourtshandsarenowtiedbythefinalityofthesaidjudgments.Wehave
norecoursebuttodenytheinstantpetition.

Theprincipleofstaredecisisetnonquietamovere(toadheretoprecedentsandnot
tounsettlethingswhichareestablished)iswellentrenchedinArticle8oftheCivilCode,
[26]
towit:

ART. 8. Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution


shallformapartofthelegalsystemofthePhilippines.

With the above provision of law, in tandem with the foregoing judicial
pronouncements,itisquiteevidentthattheappellatecourtcommittedreversibleerrorin
failing to take heed of our final, and executory decisions those decisions considered to
have attained the status of judicial precedents in so far as the Pepsi/349 cases are
concerned.Foritisthebetterpracticethatwhenacourthaslaiddownaprincipleoflaw
asapplicabletoacertainstateoffacts,itwilladheretothatprincipleandapplyittoall
[27]
futurecaseswherethefactsaresubstantiallythesame.
Inthecaseatbar,therefore,we
havenoalternativebuttoupholdtherulingthatthecorrectsecuritycodeisanessential,
nay, critical, requirement in order to become entitled to the amount printed on a 349
bearingcrownand/orresealablecap.

Likewise, the same principle of judicial precedent will prevent respondents


Pagdanganan and Lumahan from receiving the amounts of P3,500.00 and P1,000.00,
respectively,asgoodwillcompensation.AswehavestatedonthecaseofPatan:

NeitheristheawardofP500torespondentPatan,Jr.intheinterestofjusticeand
equity warranted. Respondent Patan, jr. had consistently refused the petitioners offer of
P500 for his nonwinning 349 crown. Unlike the other holders of the nonwinning 349
crowns, x x x who availed themselves of the goodwill money offered by the petitioner,
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/october2006/167866.htm

9/12

9/4/2016

G. R. No. 167866

respondentPatan,Jr.rejectedthesame.

xxxx

In this case, the petitioners offer of P500 for every nonwinning 349 crown had
longexpiredonJune12,1992.Thepetitionercannotnowbecompelledtopayrespondent
Patan,Jr.P500asagoodwillgesture,sincehehadalreadyrejectedthesame.

The doctrine of stare decisis embodies the legal maxim that a principle or rule of
lawwhichhasbeenestablishedbythedecisionofacourtofcontrollingjurisdictionwill
befollowedinothercasesinvolvingasimilarsituation.Itisfoundedonthenecessityfor
securing certainty and stability in the law and does not require identity of or privity of
[28]
parties.
This is unmistakable from the wordings ofArticle 8 of the Civil Code. It is
even said that such decisions assume the same authority as the statute itself and, until
authoritativelyabandoned,necessarilybecome,totheextentthattheyareapplicable,the
criteriawhichmustcontroltheactuationsnotonlyofthosecalledupontodecidethereby
[29]
but also of those in duty bound to enforce obedience thereto.
Abandonment thereof
mustbebasedonlyonstrongandcompellingreasons,otherwise,thebecomingvirtueof
predictabilitywhichisexpectedfromthisCourtwouldbeimmeasurablyaffectedandthe
publicsconfidenceinthestabilityofthesolemnpronouncementsdiminished.

Toreiterate,thereisnaughtthatislefttobebroughttocourt.Thosethingswhich
[30]
havebeensooftenadjudgedoughttorestinpeace.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is GRANTED. The


assailed 13 February 2004 Decision and 26April 2005 Resolution both of the Court of
Appeals in CAG.R. CV No. 68290, are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The
DecisionoftheRegionalTrialCourtofPasigCity,Branch163,inCivilCaseNo.62726
dismissing the complaint for Sum of Money and Damages is REINSTATED. Further,
respondentsPepeB.PagdangananandPepitoA.Lumahan,arenotentitledtotheawardof
P3,500.00andP1,000.00,respectively,asgoodwillcompensation.

SOORDERED.

MINITAV.CHICONAZARIO
AssociateJustice

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/october2006/167866.htm

10/12

9/4/2016

G. R. No. 167866

WECONCUR:

ARTEMIOV.PANGANIBAN
ChiefJustice
Chairman

ONSUELOYNARESSANTIAGO
MA.ALICIAAUSTRIAMARTINEZ
AssociateJustice
AssociateJustice

ROMEOJ.CALLEJO,SR.
AssociateJustice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, and the Division Chairmans
Attestation,itisherebycertifiedthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionwerereached
in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts
Division.

ARTEMIOV.PANGANIBAN
ChiefJustice

[1]
PennedbyCourtofAppealsAssociateJusticeEloyR.Bello,Jr.withAssociateJusticesAmelitaG.TolentinoandArsenio
J.MagpaleconcurringAnnexAofthePetitionrollo,pp.111120.
[2]
AnnexBofthePetitionrollo,pp.121124.
[3]
CArollo,pp.126135.
[4]
Id.at134.
[5]
PennedbyHon.LibradoS.Correa,ActingPresidingJudge.
[6]
DocketedasCivilCaseNo.62726.Records,Vol.I,pp.18.
[7]
IncompliancewiththetermsandconditionssetbytheDTI,thelistofthewinningcrownswasplacedinthesafetydeposit
boxoftheUnitedCoconutPlanterBank(UCPB)inMakatiCity.TheDTIapprovedprintedpostersadvertisingthe
Number Fever promotional campaign enjoined the participants to look for the winning threedigit number and
securitycodeunderthecrownsorresealablecaps.
[8]
As in the original promo period, in compliance with the terms and conditions set by the DTI, the new list of winning
crownswereagainplacedinthesafetydepositbowoftheUnitedCoconutPlantersBank(UCPB)inMakati.
[9]
IndexofExhibits,p.127.
[10]
Id.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/october2006/167866.htm

11/12

9/4/2016

G. R. No. 167866

[11]
Id.
[12]
Numerousholdersofcrownsand/orresealablecapsbearingthewinningthreedigitnumberwithincorrectsecuritycodes
filedseparatecomplaintsforspecificperformanceanddamages.
[13]
Records,Vol.II,pp.136138.
[14]
Supranote4.
[15]
Supranote1.
[16]
PetitionersPCPPIandPEPSICOsMemorandum,p.17.
[17]
Rodrigov.PepsiColaProducts(Phils.),Inc.andPepsico,Inc.,G.R.No.149411,1October2001.
[18]
Mendozav.PepsiColaProductsPhilippines,Inc.,G.R.No.153183,24July2002.
[19]
PepsiColaProducts(Phils.)v.Patan,Jr.,G.R.No.152927,14January2004,419SCRA417.
[20]
DeMesav.PepsiColaProductsPhils.,Inc.,G.R.Nos.15306370,19August2005,467SCRA433.
[21]
RespondentsMemorandum,p.11.
[22]
Id.
[23]
Supranote21.
[24]
DocketedasCAG.R.CVNo.53860.
[25]
RolloofG.R.No.153183,p.46.
[26]
Supranote23.
[27]
TalaRealtyServicesCorp.v.BancoFilipinoSavingsandMortgageBank,389Phil.455,461462(2000).
[28]
A.C.Freeman,ATreatiseontheLawofJudgmentsbyEdwardW.Tuttle,Vol.II{1925ed.],G.630,1329.
[29]
Caltex(Phil.)Inc.v.Palomar,124Phil.763.(1966).
[30]
CROKE,Spicerv.Spicer(1620)Cro.Jac.527.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/october2006/167866.htm

12/12