July 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > July 2010 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 152533 : July 21, 2010] PEPSI-COLA PRODUCTS PHILS., INC. V. KONSUMO FOUNDATION, INC. (KONSUMO DABAW), ET AL. :
[G.R. No. 152533 : July 21, 2010]
PEPSI-COLA PRODUCTS PHILS., INC. V. KONSUMO FOUNDATION, INC. (KONSUMO DABAW), ET AL.
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 21 July 2010 which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 152533 (Pepsi-Cola Products Phils., Inc. v. Konsumo Foundation, Inc. (Konsumo Dabaw), et al.); G.R, No. 152653 (Pepsi-Cola Products Phils., Inc. v. Belen Calero, et al); G.R. No. 153078 (Konsumo Foundation, Inc. v. Pepsi-Cola Products Phils., Inc.).-
These consolidated petitions stemmed from the "Number Fever Promotion" that Pepsi-Cola Products Phils., Inc., held from February 17 to May 8, 1992. With the assistance of a Mexican consulting firm, Pepsi-Cola randomly pre-determined the winning numbers found underneath the crowns of its softdrink bottles. Pepsi-Cola also submitted to the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) the complete list of winning crowns together with their security code for safe keeping. The DTI approved the promotion rules. Because of its success, Pepsi-Cola extended the promotion period.
On May 25, 1992 Pepsi-Cola mistakenly announced "349" as the winning crown for the next day. An avalanche of people holding the winning crowns came to claim their prizes but Pepsi-Cola recalled "349" and replaced it with "134" as the winning number. Unwilling to accept the replacement, holders of "349" crowns filed individual and group suits against Pepsi-Cola to recover their prizes in various courts through out the country. The present cases are just a few of them.
Plaintiffs Konsumo Foundation, Inc., et al. filed separate actions against Pepsi-Cola before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City in Civil Case 21,371-92/ After hearing, the trial court dismissed the actions, holding that the plaintiffs were not the proper winners in the Number Fever Promotion, On appeal in CA-G.R. CV 50236, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the result of the decision of the trial court but held Pepsi-Cola negligent in its duties to consumers without imposing any liability on it. Both parties questioned the CA's decision before this Court in G.R. 152533 and 153078.
Plaintiffs Belen Calero, et al filed similar actions against Pepsi-Cola before the RTC of General Santos City in Civil Case 5111. The trial court dismissed the complaint. On appeal,[1] the CA held that although the plaintiffs were not winners, they were each entitled to nominal damages of
P1,000.00. Pepsi-Cola filed a petition for review of the appellate court's decision.
The common issues presented by these consolidated petitions are a) whether or not plaintiffs won the Pepsi-Cola Number Fever Promotion and, b) if not, whether they are entitled to nominal damages. But these issues have already been laid to rest by several decisions of the Court.[2] The Court consistently held that the security codes were an essential part of the promotion and that the "349" crowns did not have the winning security codes. The Court also held that, since Pepsi-Cola adopted measures to control and minimize errors, no reason existed for imposing nominal damages on it. The Court finds no reason for departing from its previous rulings.
WHEREFORE, the Court:
1. DENIES the petition in G.R. 153078 for lack of merit;
2. GRANTS the petition in G.R. 152533 and AFFIRMS the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV 50236 dated October 26, 2001 insofar as it dismissed the complaint; the Court, however, REVERSES such decision insofar as it held Pepsi-Cola Products Phils., Inc. guilty of negligence; and
3. GRANTS the petition in G.R 152653 and AFFIRMS the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV 50296 dated October 30, 2001 with the MODIFICATION that the grant of nominal damages of P1,0.00.00 for each of the respondents be DELETED.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 152533 (Pepsi-Cola Products Phils., Inc. v. Konsumo Foundation, Inc. (Konsumo Dabaw), et al.); G.R, No. 152653 (Pepsi-Cola Products Phils., Inc. v. Belen Calero, et al); G.R. No. 153078 (Konsumo Foundation, Inc. v. Pepsi-Cola Products Phils., Inc.).-
These consolidated petitions stemmed from the "Number Fever Promotion" that Pepsi-Cola Products Phils., Inc., held from February 17 to May 8, 1992. With the assistance of a Mexican consulting firm, Pepsi-Cola randomly pre-determined the winning numbers found underneath the crowns of its softdrink bottles. Pepsi-Cola also submitted to the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) the complete list of winning crowns together with their security code for safe keeping. The DTI approved the promotion rules. Because of its success, Pepsi-Cola extended the promotion period.
On May 25, 1992 Pepsi-Cola mistakenly announced "349" as the winning crown for the next day. An avalanche of people holding the winning crowns came to claim their prizes but Pepsi-Cola recalled "349" and replaced it with "134" as the winning number. Unwilling to accept the replacement, holders of "349" crowns filed individual and group suits against Pepsi-Cola to recover their prizes in various courts through out the country. The present cases are just a few of them.
In G.R. 152533 & 153078
Plaintiffs Konsumo Foundation, Inc., et al. filed separate actions against Pepsi-Cola before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City in Civil Case 21,371-92/ After hearing, the trial court dismissed the actions, holding that the plaintiffs were not the proper winners in the Number Fever Promotion, On appeal in CA-G.R. CV 50236, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the result of the decision of the trial court but held Pepsi-Cola negligent in its duties to consumers without imposing any liability on it. Both parties questioned the CA's decision before this Court in G.R. 152533 and 153078.
In G.R. 152653
Plaintiffs Belen Calero, et al filed similar actions against Pepsi-Cola before the RTC of General Santos City in Civil Case 5111. The trial court dismissed the complaint. On appeal,[1] the CA held that although the plaintiffs were not winners, they were each entitled to nominal damages of
P1,000.00. Pepsi-Cola filed a petition for review of the appellate court's decision.
The common issues presented by these consolidated petitions are a) whether or not plaintiffs won the Pepsi-Cola Number Fever Promotion and, b) if not, whether they are entitled to nominal damages. But these issues have already been laid to rest by several decisions of the Court.[2] The Court consistently held that the security codes were an essential part of the promotion and that the "349" crowns did not have the winning security codes. The Court also held that, since Pepsi-Cola adopted measures to control and minimize errors, no reason existed for imposing nominal damages on it. The Court finds no reason for departing from its previous rulings.
WHEREFORE, the Court:
1. DENIES the petition in G.R. 153078 for lack of merit;
2. GRANTS the petition in G.R. 152533 and AFFIRMS the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV 50236 dated October 26, 2001 insofar as it dismissed the complaint; the Court, however, REVERSES such decision insofar as it held Pepsi-Cola Products Phils., Inc. guilty of negligence; and
3. GRANTS the petition in G.R 152653 and AFFIRMS the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV 50296 dated October 30, 2001 with the MODIFICATION that the grant of nominal damages of P1,0.00.00 for each of the respondents be DELETED.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L, LAUREA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L, LAUREA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Docketed as CA-G.R. CV 50296.
[2] Pepsi Cola Products Phils., Inc. v. Espiritu, G.R. No. 150394, June 26,2007,525 SCRA 527; Pepsi Cola Products Phils., Inc. v. Pagdanganan, G.R. No. 167866, October 16,2006,504 SCRA 549; PEPSICO, Inc. v. Lacanilao, G.R. No. 146007, June 15, 2006, 490 SCRA 615; De Mesa v. Pepsi Cola Products Phils., Inc G.R. Nos. 153063-70, August 19, 2005, 467 SCRA 433; Pepsi Cola Products (Phils.) v. Patan, Jr., 464 Phil. 517 (2004); Mendoza v. PCPPI, G.R. No. 153183, July 24, 2002; Rodrigo v. PCPPI, G.R. No. 149411, October 1, 2001.
