Scribd
Upload
216 views1 page

(RESPICIO) - (Pepsi Cola Products PH., Inc. vs. Efren Espiritu Et. Al.)

Pepsi Cola conducted a promotional campaign with winning numbers printed under bottle caps. When number 349 was drawn, several caps bearing that number were presented but did not match the predetermined winning code. The cap holders sued Pepsi Cola. The Supreme Court had previously ruled in similar cases that cap holders were not entitled to winnings if the code did not match. Following the principle of legal precedent, the Court ruled that the cap holders in this case were not entitled to payment, overturning lower court rulings ordering Pepsi Cola to pay damages.

Uploaded by

Alex Respicio
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
216 views1 page

(RESPICIO) - (Pepsi Cola Products PH., Inc. vs. Efren Espiritu Et. Al.)

Pepsi Cola conducted a promotional campaign with winning numbers printed under bottle caps. When number 349 was drawn, several caps bearing that number were presented but did not match the predetermined winning code. The cap holders sued Pepsi Cola. The Supreme Court had previously ruled in similar cases that cap holders were not entitled to winnings if the code did not match. Following the principle of legal precedent, the Court ruled that the cap holders in this case were not entitled to payment, overturning lower court rulings ordering Pepsi Cola to pay damages.

Uploaded by

Alex Respicio
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

G.R. No.

150394              June 26, 2007

PEPSI COLA PRODUCTS (PHILS.), INC., petitioner, vs. EFREN


ESPIRITU, et. al. respondent.

FACTS:
Pepsi Cola Products Philippines Inc. (PCPPI) conducted “Number Fever”
promotional campaign for its products in the Philippines where buyers
would have the chance to win the amount printed under crown/caps. To
prevent manipulation of the promotional campaign, predetermined winning
numbers with matching security codes were deposited in a safety box
inside the vault of United Coconut Planters Bank, and the 2 keys intended
to access the safety box were held by DTI and PCPPI.

Come May 25, 1992, number 349 was announced as the winning number.
The holders of several crowns bearing the winning number with security
code L-2560-FQ are the respondents; PCPPI opened the safety box and
found that code L-2560-FQ did not appear on the list. Nonetheless, as a
sign of goodwill gesture PCPPI offered respondents P500.00 per crown but
the same was rejected.

The respondents being unsatisfied, joined Ugnayan 349 Association Inc., to


file a complaint. RTC held that respondents are not entitled to the crown
but ordered PCPPI to pay each plaintiff P10,000.00 for moral damages. CA
affirmed and raised damages and attorney’s fees to P30,000.00.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondents are entitled to their crowns.

HELD:
The Pepsi 349 incident spawned several cases all over the country. Some
of the separate complaints that had been filed by other rejected crown
holders had already resulted in final and executory rulings by this Court that
must be followed in the case at bar.

Entrenched in Article 8 of the Civil Code, judicial decisions applying or


interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form part of the legal system
of the Philippines. Following the principle of stare decisis et non quieta
movere in the instant case, the 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 as those in the cases of Mendoza v.
Rodrigo and other similar cases earlier decided by the Supreme Court.
Hence, to secure certainty and stability in the law, the Supreme Court's
final decision in the said cases must be respected. Supreme Court's hands
are now tied by the finality of the said judgments.

Petitioner PCPPI is not liable to pay the amounts printed on the crowns to
their holders. Nor is PCPPI liable for damages thereon.

You might also like