7/31/2017 G. R. No.

167866

FIRSTDIVISION

PEPSICOLA PRODUCTS G.R.No.167866
PHILIPPINES,
INCORPORATED,andPEPSICO,
INCORPORATED, Present:
Petitioners,
PANGANIBAN,C.J.,
YNARESSANTIAGO,
AUSTRIAMARTINEZ,
versus CALLEJO,SR.,
CHICONAZARIO,JJ.


PEPE B. PAGDANGANAN, and Promulgated:
PEPITOA.LUMAJAN,
Respondents. October12,2006
xx

DECISION


CHICONAZARIO,J.:
TheCase

ForreviewunderRule45oftheRulesofCourt,asamended,isthe13February2004
[1] [2]
Decision and 26 June 2005 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. CV No.
[3] [4]
68290, reversing and setting aside the 3August 2000 Decision and 23 August 2000
[5]
OrderoftheRegionalTrialCourtofPasigCity,Branch163, inCivilCaseNo.62726.

TheFacts

[6]
This case stemmed from a Complaint filed by herein respondents Pepe B.
Pagdanganan (Pagdanganan) and Pepito A. Lumahan (Lumahan) against herein petitioners
PepsiCola Products Philippines, Incorporated (PCPPI) and PEPSICO, Incorporated
(PEPSICO) on 22 December 1992, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City,
Branch163,forSumofMoneyandDamages.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/october2006/167866.htm 1/13
7/31/2017 G. R. No. 167866

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

PetitionersPCPPIandPEPSICOlaunchedaDepartmentofTradeandIndustry(DTI)
approved and supervised underthecrown promotional campaign entitled Number Fever
sometime in 1992. With said marketing strategy, it undertook to give away cash prizes to
holdersofspeciallymarkedcrownsandresealablecapsofPEPSICOLAsoftdrinkproducts,
i.e.,Pepsi,7Up,MirindaandMountainDew.Speciallymarkedcrownsandresealablecaps
weresaidtocontaina)athreedigitnumber,b)asevendigitalphanumericsecuritycode,and
c)theamountofthecashprizeinanyofthefollowingdenominationsP1,000.00P10,000.00
P50,000.00P100,000.00andP1,000,000.00.

PetitionersPCPPIandPEPSICOengagedtheservicesofD.G.Consultores,aMexican
consultancy firm with experience in handling similar promotion in other countries, to
randomlypreselect60winningthreedigitnumberswiththeirmatchingsecuritycodesoutof
1000 threedigit numbers seeded in the market, as well as the corresponding artworks
appearingonawinningcrownand/orresealablecap.

The mechanics of the Number Fever promo was simple From Monday to Friday,
starting17February1992to8May1992,petitionersPCPPIandPEPSICOwillannounce,on
[7]
nationalandlocalbroadcastandprintmedia,arandomlypreselected winningthreedigit
number.Allholdersofspeciallymarkedcrownsbearingthewinningthreedigitnumberwill
winthecorrespondingamountprintedonsaidcrownsand/orresealablecaps.

On account of the success of the promotional campaign, petitioners PCPPI and
PEPSICOextendedorstretchedoutthedurationoftheNumberFeverforanotherfiveweeks
oruntil12June1992.

Fortheextendedperiod,petitionersPCPPIandPEPSICOagainsoughttheservicesof
D.G. Consultores to preselect 25 winning threedigit numbers with their matching security
codesaswellasthecorrespondingartworkstoappearonawinningcrownand/orresealable
cap.

On25May1992,petitionersPCPPIandPEPSICOannouncedthenotoriousthreedigit
combination349asthewinningnumberforthenextday,26May1992.Onthesamenightof
the announcement, however, petitioners PCPPI and PEPSICO learned of reports that

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/october2006/167866.htm 2/13
7/31/2017 G. R. No. 167866

numerous people were trying to redeem 349 bearing crowns and/or resealable caps with
incorrectsecuritycodesL2560FQandL3560FQ.Uponverificationfromthelistofthe25
[8]
preselected winning threedigit numbers, petitioners PCPPI and PEPSICO and the DTI
learnedthatthethreedigitcombination349wasindeedthewinningcombinationfor26May
1992butthesecuritycodesL2560FQandL3560FQdonotcorrespondtothatassignedto
thewinningnumber349.

Subsequently,petitionersPCPPIandPEPSICOissuedastatementstatinginpartthat:

DEARVALUEDCUSTOMERS

xxxx

Some349crownshavewinningsecuritycodesasperthelistheldinabankvaultby
the Department of Trade and Industry and will be redeemed at full value like all other
authenticatedwinningcrowns.

Someother349crownswhichhavesecuritycodesL2560FQandL3560FQarenot
winningcrowns.

However,asanactofgoodwilltoourcustomers,wewillredeemthenonwinning349
crownsforP500.00eachuntilJune12,1992atallPepsiplants&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]
correspondingcashprizeofeachofhis349bearingcrown,specifically,four7Up crowns
[10]
andtwoMirinda crowns,eachdisplayingthecashprizeofP1,000,000.00inadditionto
[11]
one7Up crownshowingthecashprizeofP100,000.00.Notably,allsevencrownsbore
thesecuritycodeL2560FQ.

For his part, respondent Lumahan similarly insisted that petitioners PCPPI and
PEPSICOpayhimthecashvalueofhistwowinningcrowns,thatis,two7Upcrownswith
oneexhibitingthecashvalueofP1,000,000.00andtheothertheamountofP100,000.00.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/october2006/167866.htm 3/13
7/31/2017 G. R. No. 167866

PetitionersPCPPIandPEPSICOrefusedtotakeheedoftheaforementioneddemands.

Affronted by the seeming injustice, respondents Pagdanganan and Lumahan filed a
[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.

The defendants are hereby ordered to pay plaintiffs Pagdanganan and Lumahan the
amountsofP3,500.00andP1,000.00,respectively.

Withoutcosts.

SOORDERED.


Indismissingthecomplaint,theRTCratiocinatedthat:

Thepreponderanceofevidencenowonrecorddoesnotappeartosupporttheassertion
of the plaintiffs that number 349 with security code number L2560FQ won the Pepsicos
salespromotiongameforMay26,1992.Whileitistruethatnumber349wasusedbothasa
winning and nonwinning number, still the winning 349 must tally with the corresponding
securitycodecontainedinthemasterlistofwinningcrowns.

xxxx

xxx[a]mongthe349senumeratedinthelistofwinningcrowns(citationomitted)as
winningnumberswere349V2421JC349A7963IS349B4860IG349C3984RP349
D5863CO 349 E3800EL 349 U3501MN (sic) and 349 U3246NP. Nowhere to be
foundwerenos.349L2560FQandL3560FQ.Thismeansthatitwasnotpossibleforboth
defendantstohavewonduringtheentireextendedperiodofthesalespromotionofPepsiCola
becausethenumberdidnotappearinthemasterlist.Itwasmadeclearintheadvertisements
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 Industry had been duly informed of the
mechanicsofthePepsiColasalespromotionfortheprotectionoftheinterestofthepublic.

Anent the award of P3,500.00 and P1,000.00 to respondents Pagdanganan and
Lumahan,respectively,theRTCjustifiedsuchgrant,bystatingtowit:

x x x since the defendants have voluntarily announced their desire to pay holders of
capsorcrownsoftheirproductsbearingnonwinningnumber349asasignofgoodwill,the
Courtfeelsthatthisprivilegeshouldalsobeextendedtotheplaintiffsdespitetheinstitutionof
theinstantcase.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/october2006/167866.htm 4/13
7/31/2017 G. R. No. 167866

[13]
Their Partial Motion for Reconsideration having been denied in an
[14]
Order dated 23 August 2000, respondents Pagdanganan and Lumahan appealed
theircasetotheCourtofAppeals.

[15]
InaDecision promulgatedon13February2004,theCourtofAppealsreversedand
setasidethedecisionoftheRTC,thefalloofwhichreads:

WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby GRANTED. The decision of the Regional Trial
CourtofPasig,Branch163,inCivilCaseNo.62726isREVERSED.Defendantsappellants
areherebyORDEREDtopayplaintiffsappellantsPepePagdangananthesumofP5million
andPepitoLumahanthesumofP1.2million.


In a Resolution dated 26 April 2005, the Court of Appeals denied petitioners PCPPI
andPEPSICOsMotionforReconsideration.

TheIssues

Hence, this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, as
[16]
amended,predicatedonthefollowingissues:

I.

WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONERS ARE ESTOPPED FROM RAISING STARE
DECISIS

II.

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

III.

WHETHERORNOTTHERESPONDENTSRAISEANYISSUETHATHASNOT
BEEN PREVIOUSLY RESOLVED IN RODRIGO, MENDOZA, PATAN OR DE
MESA

IV.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/october2006/167866.htm 5/13
7/31/2017 G. R. No. 167866

WHETHER OR NOT THE SENATE AND DTI TASK FORCE REPORTS ARE
EVENRELEVANT,ORCONTROLLINGand

V.

WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENTS MAY SEEK AFFIRMATIVE RELIEF
WITHOUTHAVINGAPPEALED.


Inessence,thepresentpetitionraisesasfundamentalissueforresolutionbytheCourt
thequestionofwhetherornottheinstantcaseisalreadybarredbyourrulingsinthecasesof
[17] [18] [19] [20]
Rodrigo, Mendoza, Patan and,themostrecent,DeMesa.

TheCourtsRuling

In ordering petitioners PCPPI and PEPSICO to pay respondents Pagdanganan and
Lumahan the amounts of P5,000,000.00 and P1,200,000.00, the appellate court articulated
that:

x x x [w]e fully agree with the contention of plaintiffsappellants that such deviation or
additionalrequirement,thatisthewinningcrownmusthaveacorrespondingwinningsecurity
code,imposedbyPEPSIwasadeviationfromtherulesapprovedbyDTI.

xxxx

x x x [i]t appeared that the matching winning security with code is not an express
requirement in order to win. Taken together with printed promo mechanics, this means that
oneisawinneraslongashehasinhispossessionthecrownwiththewinningnumber.The
matchingwinningsecuritycodeisnotrequired.

Withthepromomechanicsastheguide,itisundisputablethatplaintiffsappellantsare
verywellentitledtothecashprizesindicatedontheircrowns.Todenytheirclaimdespitetheir
compliancewiththeunequivocalrequirementsofthepromotioniscontrarytotheprincipleof
goodfaith.

xxxx

ItishighlyinequitableforPEPSItoimposeanadditionalrequirementinordertowin
asawaytoevadetheunusuallylargenumberof349winnerclaimants.xxx.


PetitionersPCPPIandPEPSICOfaulttheappellatecourtfordisregardingthisCourts
pronouncements in four other Pepsi/349 cases i.e., Mendoza, Rodrigo, Patan and De Mesa
that the 349 bearing crowns and/or resealable caps with security codes L2560FQ and L
3560FQ, like those held by respondents Pagdanganan and Lumahan, are nonwinning
crowns under the terms of the Number Fever promo. They reckon that, by virtue of the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/october2006/167866.htm 6/13
7/31/2017 G. R. No. 167866

principleofstaredecisis,theaforementionedcaseshavealreadysettledtheissueofwhether
or not petitioners PCPPI and PEPSICO are liable to holders of nonwinning 349 bearing
crowns and/or resealable caps. Simply put, the principle of stare decisis should have been
determinativeoftheoutcomeofthecaseatbar.Rodrigo,Mendoza,PatanandDeMesacases
havingruledontheverysameissuesraisedinthecaseatbar,theyconstitutebindingjudicial
precedentsonhowPepsi/"349"litigationsmustbedisposedof.

Ontheotherhand,respondentsPagdangananandLumahanjustifythenonapplication
oftheprincipleofstaredecisisbystatingthatitisrequiredthatthelegalrightsandrelations
oftheparties,andthefacts,andtheapplicablelaws,theissueandevidenceareexactlythe
same,(sic)asthosedecidedinthecasesofRodrigo,MendozaandlaterthedeMesa x x x.
[21]
Theycontend,however,thatacomparisonofthesubjectcasesshowthattheyarenotthe
samenoridenticalxxxasevidentinthedifferentquestionsoflaw,thefindingsoffactsand
[22]
evidenceandissuesinvolvedinsaidcasesxxx. Infact,respondentsPagdangananand
LumahanparticularlyarguethatthebasisoftheiractionisBreachofContractwhilethatof
theRodrigoandMendozacasesinvolvedcomplaintsforSpecificPerformance.

Thepetitionismeritorious.

ThereisnoquestionthatthecasesofMendoza,Rodrigo,PatanandDeMesa,including
thecaseatbar,arosefromthesamesetoffactsconcerningtheNumberFeverpromodebacle
of petitioners PCPPI and PEPSICO. Mendoza, Rodrigo, Patan, De Mesa, Pagdanganan and
Lumahan are among those holding supposedly winning 349 Pepsi/7Up/Mirinda/Mountain
Dewsoftdrinkcrownsand/orresealablecaps.Saidcrownsand/orresealablecapswerenot
honoredorallowedtobecashedinbypetitionersPCPPIandPEPSICOforfailingtocontain
the correct security code assigned to such winning combination. As a result, the rejected
crownand/orresealablecapholdersfiledseparatecomplaintsforspecificperformance/sum
ofmoney/breachofcontract,withdamages,allagainstpetitionersPCPPIandPEPSICO.

Asurveyofsaidcasesisimperativeinordertodeterminewhetherornottheprinciple
ofstaredecisiswill,indeed,bartherelitigationoftheinstantcase.

In2001,inthecaseofMendozav.PepsiColaProductsPhils.,Inc.andPepsico,Inc.,
[23]
theRTCdismissedthecomplaintforspecificperformanceanddamagesagainstherein
[24]
petitioners PCPPI and PEPSICO. On appeal with the Court of Appeals, the latter
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/october2006/167866.htm 7/13
7/31/2017 G. R. No. 167866

dismissed the appeal for lack of merit and affirmed the dismissal of the complaint. It
rationalizedthat:

ThemechanicsfortheNumberFeverpromo,bothintheoriginalperiodandfortheextension
period, was duly approved by the DTI. Television, radio and print advertisements for the
promo passed through and were by the DTI. Posters explaining the promo mechanics were
postedalloverthecountryandwarningadsinnewspapershighlightedtheimportanceofthe
securitycode.Plaintiffappellantadmittedtohavereadandunderstoodthemechanicsofthe
promo.HisdifferentinterpretationofthesecuritycodesfunctionshouldnotmeanthatPEPSI
was grossly negligent. The mechanics were clear. A winning number had its own unique,
matching security code which must be authenticated by PEPSI against its official list. The
importanceofamatchingsecuritycodehadbeenadequatelyemphasizedintheWarningAds
(citation omitted) and in the new campaign posters (citation omitted) during the extension
periodbothofwhichweredulyapprovedbyDTI.

xxxx

Thefunctionofthesecuritycodeisnotlimitedtothedeterminationofwhetherornotacrown
is tampered with or fake. It also serves to authenticate the winning number combination
whether it had the correct alphanumeric security code uniquely assigned to each crown as
appearing in PEPSIs official list. The campaign posters for the promo period February 17,
1992toMay10,1992aswellasfortheextensionperiodfromMay11,1992toJune12,1992
uniformlyenumeratedthree(3)essentialelementsofaparticipatingwinningcrown,towit:(1)
3digitwinningnumber(2)prizedenominationand(3)7digitalphanumericsecuritycode.
xxxThepromomechanicsstressedthatthe3digitwinningnumbercombinationmusthave
an authenticated security code, which security code was unique to every crown. Thus,
plaintiffappellants 349 crown must also be measured against the essential elements of a
winningparticipatingcrownpursuanttothepromosmechanics.

xxxx

Thus,PEPSIsobligationtoredeemplaintiffappellants349crowndidnotariseashiscrown
didnotbearthecorrectsecuritycode,aconditionprecedenttowinningtheprofferedprize.

APetitionforReviewonCertiorariwasthenfiledwiththisCourt.InaResolutiondated24
July 2002, we denied Mendozas petition for review for failing to show that the Court of
[25]
Appealscommittedreversibleerror.

Similarly,in2002,inRodrigov.PepsiColaProducts(Phils.),Inc.andPepsico,Inc.,
theRTCthereindismissedthecomplaintforSpecificPerformanceandDamagesfiledagainst
hereinpetitionersPCPPIandPEPSICO.TheCourtofAppealsthenaffirmedthedismissalof
thecomplaint,statingthat:

To resolve the pivotal issue of whether the appellants are the real winners of the
promo,thevariousadvertisementsmustbereadtogethertogiveeffecttoall.Fromthestartof
the promotion, Pepsi had highlighted the security code as a major component of each and
every crown. In subsequent posters, the companies clarified its role as a measure against
tamperingorfakingcrowns.(sic),andemphasizedtheimportantroleofthesecuritycodein
identifying and verifying the real winning crown. In its Warning Cheaters posters, the third
paragraphsuccinctlyprovidesthat:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/october2006/167866.htm 8/13
7/31/2017 G. R. No. 167866

Thusifasupposedwinningcrownispresentedtouswherethesecurity
codedoesnotmatchtherealsecuritycodeofthewinningnumberasverified
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. (Citation
omitted.)

Also(sic)thecompaniespublishedthat:

Every crown/cap with a winning number and Authenticated security
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
consideringtheconditionssurroundingtheirissuancei.e.,thatasearlyasMarch1992,various
complaints of tampered crowns had reached the DTI. This construction is bolstered by the
subsequentreleaseoftheNUMBERFEVERMORECHANCESTOWINpostersduringthe
extensionperiodwhereinthesecuritycodeisdefinedasameasureagainsttamperingorfaking
of crowns (citation omitted) and in the subsequent advertisements which warned the
consumingpublicthattheappelleecompanieswouldnothonorunderanycircumstancesany
fakeortamperedcrown.(Citationomitted.)

Theinescapableconclusionisthatthecrownsheldbytheappellantsarenotwinning
crowns.xxx.

Undaunted, Rodrigo went to this Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari but we
subsequently denied his petition, in a Resolution dated 1 October 2001, for failure to show
that a reversible error was committed by the Court of Appeals, hence the aforequoted
disquisitionwasaffirmed.

Promulgated in 2003, in Pepsi Cola Products (Phils.) vs. Patan, Jr., the RTC therein
dismissedtwoconsolidatedcomplaintsforspecificperformanceanddamagesagainstherein
petitioners PCPPI and PEPSICO for lack of cause of action. The Court of Appeals
substantiallyaffirmedthefindingsofthetrialcourtthatthereinrespondentsdidnotwininthe
petitioners Number Fever promotional campaign as their crowns were not the winning
crowns.Theappellatecourt,however,awardedthereinrespondentsP500eachintheinterest
ofjustice.WhenthecasecametotheCourtbymeansofaPetitionforReviewonCertiorari,
thefindingthatthecorrectsecuritycodeisanindispensablerequirementtobeentitledtothe
cashprizeisconcerned,wasaffirmed.TheawardofP500thoughwasdeletedasitwasour
stancethattheofferofP500foreverynonwinning349crownhadlongexpiredon12June
1992.

And, in the 2005 case of De Mesa v. Pepsi Cola Products Phils., Inc., the RTC
dismissedthecaseundertheprincipleofstaredecisis.Itelucidatedthattheinstantcase,as
well as the 2001 Mendoza 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
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/october2006/167866.htm 9/13
7/31/2017 G. R. No. 167866

applicable laws, the causes of action, the issues, and the testimonial and documentary
evidenceareidenticalsuchthatarulinginonecase,undertheprincipleofstaredecisis,isa
bartoanyattempttorelitigatethesameissue.Subsequently,DeMesaetal.,filedaPetition
forReviewonCertioraribeforeuschallengingtheapplicationoftheprincipleofstaredecisis
tosaidcase.InaDecisionpromulgated19August2005,wedeniedtheirrecoursetothiscourt
andaffirmedthedismissalofthecomplaint.Weheldthat:

Intheinstantcase,thelegalrightsandrelationsoftheparties,thefacts,theapplicable
laws, the causes of action, the issues, and the evidence are exactly the same as those in the
decidedcasesofMendozaandRodrigo,supra.Hence,nothingislefttobeargued.Theissue
hasbeensettledandthisCourtsfinaldecisioninthesaidcasesmustberespected.ThisCourts
handsarenowtiedbythefinalityofthesaidjudgments.Wehavenorecoursebuttodenythe
instantpetition.

Theprincipleofstaredecisisetnonquietamovere(toadheretoprecedentsandnotto
unsettlethingswhichareestablished)iswellentrenchedinArticle8oftheCivilCode,towit:
[26]

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


With the above provision of law, in tandem with the foregoing judicial
pronouncements, it is quite evident that the appellate court committed reversible error in
failingtotakeheedofourfinal,andexecutorydecisionsthosedecisionsconsideredtohave
attainedthestatusofjudicialprecedentsinsofarasthePepsi/349casesareconcerned.Forit
is the better practice that when a court has laid down a principle of law as applicable to a
certainstateoffacts,itwilladheretothatprincipleandapplyittoallfuturecaseswherethe
[27]
factsaresubstantiallythesame. Inthecaseatbar,therefore,wehavenoalternativebutto
upholdtherulingthatthe correct security code is an essential, nay, critical, requirement in
ordertobecomeentitledtotheamountprintedona349bearingcrownand/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:

Neither is the award of P500 to respondent Patan, Jr. in the interest of justice and
equitywarranted.RespondentPatan,jr.hadconsistentlyrefusedthepetitionersofferofP500
forhisnonwinning349crown.Unliketheotherholdersofthenonwinning349crowns,xxx
whoavailedthemselvesofthegoodwillmoneyofferedbythepetitioner,respondentPatan,Jr.
rejectedthesame.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/october2006/167866.htm 10/13
7/31/2017 G. R. No. 167866

xxxx

Inthiscase,thepetitionersofferofP500foreverynonwinning349crownhadlong
expiredonJune12,1992.ThepetitionercannotnowbecompelledtopayrespondentPatan,Jr.
P500asagoodwillgesture,sincehehadalreadyrejectedthesame.

Thedoctrineofstaredecisisembodiesthelegalmaximthataprincipleorruleoflaw
which has been established by the decision of a court of controlling jurisdiction will be
followed in other cases involving a similar situation. It is founded on the necessity for
securingcertaintyandstabilityinthelawanddoesnotrequireidentityoforprivityofparties.
[28]
ThisisunmistakablefromthewordingsofArticle8oftheCivilCode.Itisevensaidthat
such decisions assume the same authority as the statute itself and, until authoritatively
abandoned,necessarilybecome,totheextentthattheyareapplicable,thecriteriawhichmust
controltheactuationsnotonlyofthosecalledupontodecidetherebybutalsoofthoseinduty
[29]
boundtoenforceobediencethereto. Abandonmentthereofmustbebasedonlyonstrong
and compelling reasons, otherwise, the becoming virtue of predictability which is expected
fromthisCourtwouldbeimmeasurablyaffectedandthepublicsconfidenceinthestabilityof
thesolemnpronouncementsdiminished.

Toreiterate,thereisnaughtthatislefttobebroughttocourt.Thosethingswhichhave
[30]
beensooftenadjudgedoughttorestinpeace.

WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,theinstantpetitionisGRANTED.Theassailed
13February2004Decisionand26April2005ResolutionbothoftheCourtofAppealsinCA
G.R.CVNo.68290,areherebyREVERSEDandSETASIDE.TheDecisionoftheRegional
TrialCourtofPasigCity,Branch163,inCivilCaseNo.62726dismissingthecomplaintfor
Sum of Money and Damages is REINSTATED. Further, respondents Pepe B. Pagdanganan
and Pepito A. Lumahan, are not entitled to the award of P3,500.00 and P1,000.00,
respectively,asgoodwillcompensation.

SOORDERED.




MINITAV.CHICONAZARIO
AssociateJustice


http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/october2006/167866.htm 11/13
 7/31/2017 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,itisherebycertifiedthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionwerereachedin
consultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.



ARTEMIOV.PANGANIBAN
ChiefJustice

[1]
PennedbyCourtofAppealsAssociateJusticeEloyR.Bello,Jr.withAssociateJusticesAmelitaG.TolentinoandArsenioJ.
MagpaleconcurringAnnexAofthePetitionrollo,pp.111120.
[2]
AnnexBofthePetitionrollo,pp.121124.
[3]
CArollo,pp.126135.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/october2006/167866.htm 12/13
7/31/2017 G. R. No. 167866
[4]
Id.at134.
[5]
PennedbyHon.LibradoS.Correa,ActingPresidingJudge.
[6]
DocketedasCivilCaseNo.62726.Records,Vol.I,pp.18.
[7]
IncompliancewiththetermsandconditionssetbytheDTI,thelistofthewinningcrownswasplacedinthesafetydepositbox
oftheUnitedCoconutPlanterBank(UCPB)inMakatiCity.TheDTIapprovedprintedpostersadvertisingtheNumber
Feverpromotionalcampaignenjoinedtheparticipantstolookforthewinningthreedigitnumberandsecuritycodeunder
thecrownsorresealablecaps.
[8]
Asintheoriginalpromoperiod,incompliancewiththetermsandconditionssetbytheDTI,thenewlistofwinningcrowns
wereagainplacedinthesafetydepositbowoftheUnitedCoconutPlantersBank(UCPB)inMakati.
[9]
IndexofExhibits,p.127.
[10]
Id.
[11]
Id.
[12]
Numerousholdersofcrownsand/orresealablecapsbearingthewinningthreedigitnumberwithincorrectsecuritycodesfiled
separatecomplaintsforspecificperformanceanddamages.
[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 13/13