PEPSI-COLA PRODUCTS, PHIL. INC. V.

PAGDANGANAN
G.R. No. 167866, October 16, 2006

I. FACTS
 Pepsi launched a promotional campaign, “Number Fever” in 1992
o Cash prizes to holders of specially marked crowns and resealable caps of PEPSI-
COLA soft drink products
 Three-digit number
 Seven-digit alpha-numeric security code
 Amount of cash prize (1,000, 10,000, 50,000, 100,000, 1,000,000)
 PEPSICO consulted with D.G. Consultores, a Mexican consultancy firm
 PEPSICO announce “349” as the winning number, and several people tried to redeem “349”
bearing crowns with incorrect security codes “L-2560-FQ” and “L-3560-FQ”
 As an act of goodwill, PEPSICO redeemed the incorrect crowns with PHP500 each
 Pagdanganan and Lumahan demanded from PEPSICO the payment of corresponding cash
prize despite the announcement and filed a complaint for Sum of Money and Damages in
RTC Pasig City
 RTC dismissed the petition for lack of cause of action, but ordered PEPSICO to pay them
each the goodwill reward
 CA reversed the RTC’s decision and denied PEPSICO’s Motion for Reconsideration
 PETITIONER’S CASE
o Other cases involving the same Pepsi/349 issue have already settled and should have
been determinative of the outcome of the case at bar based on the principle of stare
decisis
 RESPONDENT’S CASE
o The principle of stare decisis is not applicable as the questions of law raised, the
findings of facts and evidence and issues, and basis of actions are different
 Breach of Contract vs. Specific Performance

II. ISSUES
 Whether or not petitioners are estopped from raising stare decisis
 Whether or not Rodrigo, Mendoza, Patan, and De Mesa are binding although respondents
were not parties therein
 Whether or not the respondents raise any issue that has not been previously resolved in cases
 Whether or not the senate and DTI task force reports are even relevant or controlling
 Whether or not respondents may seek affirmative relief having appealed

III. RULING
 The petition is AFFIRMED. The respondents are also NOT entitled to receive the goodwill
reward of PHP500 each. The RTC decision is REINSTATED.

IV. RATIO
 The RMPD cases arose with the same set of facts as the case at bar
 The security code is an essential and critical requirement to become entitled to the amount
printed on a “349” bearing crown and/or resealable cap
V. NOTES
 Stare decisis: legal rights and relations of the parties, the facts, the applicable laws, the
causes of action, the issues, and the evidence are exactly the same
o A principle or rule of law which has been established by the decision of a court
of controlling jurisdiction will be followed in other cases involving a similar
situation
 Article 8, Civil Code: judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution
shall form a part of the legal system of the Philippines