FIRST DIVISION The mechanics of the "Number Fever" promo was simple – From Monday to Friday, starting 17

February 1992 to 8 May 1992, petitioners PCPPI and PEPSICO will announce, on national and local
G.R. No. 167866             October 12, 2006 broadcast and print media, a randomly pre-selected 7 winning three-digit number. All holders of
specially marked crowns bearing the winning three-digit number will win the corresponding amount
printed on said crowns and/or resealable caps.
PEPSI-COLA PRODUCTS PHILIPPINES, INCORPORATED, and PEPSICO, INCORPORATED, petitioners, 
vs.
PEPE B. PAGDANGANAN, and PEPITO A. LUMAJAN, respondents. 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 weeks or until 12 June 1992.
DECISION
For the extended period, petitioners PCPPI and PEPSICO again sought the services of D.G.
Consultores to pre-select 25 winning three-digit numbers with their matching security codes as well
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
as the corresponding artworks to appear on a winning crown and/or resealable cap.

The Case
On 25 May 1992, petitioners PCPPI and PEPSICO announced the notorious three-digit combination
"349" as the winning number for the next day, 26 May 1992. On the same night of the
For review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, as amended, is the 13 February 2004 Decision1 and announcement, however, petitioners PCPPI and PEPSICO learned of reports that numerous people
26 June 2005 Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 68290, reversing and setting were trying to redeem "349" bearing crowns and/or resealable caps with incorrect security codes
aside the 3 August 20003 Decision and 23 August 20004 Order of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig "L-2560-FQ" and "L-3560-FQ." Upon verification from the list of the 25 pre-selected 8 winning three-
City, Branch 163,5 in Civil Case No. 62726. digit numbers, petitioners PCPPI and PEPSICO and the DTI learned that the three-digit combination
"349" was indeed the winning combination for 26 May 1992 but the security codes "L-2560-FQ" and
The Facts "L-3560-FQ" do not correspond to that assigned to the winning number "349".

This case stemmed from a Complaint6 filed by herein respondents Pepe B. Pagdanganan Subsequently, petitioners PCPPI and PEPSICO issued a statement stating in part that:
(Pagdanganan) and Pepito A. Lumahan (Lumahan) against herein petitioners Pepsi-Cola Products
Philippines, Incorporated (PCPPI) and PEPSICO, Incorporated (PEPSICO) on 22 December 1992, DEAR VALUED CUSTOMERS
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 163, for Sum of Money and Damages.
xxxx
The facts are beyond dispute. As culled from the records of the case, they are as follows:
Some 349 crowns have winning security codes as per the list held in a bank vault by the Department
Petitioners PCPPI and PEPSICO launched a Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) approved and of Trade and Industry and will be redeemed at full value like all other authenticated winning
supervised under-the-crown promotional campaign entitled "Number Fever" sometime in 1992. crowns.
With said marketing strategy, it undertook to give away cash prizes to holders of specially marked
crowns and resealable caps of PEPSI-COLA softdrink products, i.e., Pepsi, 7-Up, Mirinda and
Some other 349 crowns which have security codes L-2560-FQ and L-3560-FQ are not winning
Mountain Dew. Specially marked crowns and resealable caps were said to contain a) a three-digit
crowns.
number, b) a seven-digit alpha-numeric security code, and c) the amount of the cash prize in any of
the following denominations – P1,000.00; P10,000.00; P50,000.00; P100,000.00; andP1,000,000.00.
However, as an act of goodwill to our customers, we will redeem the non-winning 349 crowns for
P500.00 each until June 12, 1992 at all Pepsi plants & warehouses.
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 pre-select 60
winning three-digit numbers with their matching security codes out of 1000 three-digit numbers xxxx
seeded in the market, as well as the corresponding artworks appearing on a winning crown and/or
resealable cap.
Sincerely,

ROD SALAZAR

1
 x x x [a]mong the 349s enumerated in the list of winning crowns (citation omitted) as
President
winning numbers were 349 V-2421-JC; 349 A-7963-IS; 349 B-4860-IG; 349 C-3984-RP; 349
PEPSI-COLA PRODUCTS PHILS., INC.
D-5863-CO; 349 E-3800-EL; 349 U-3501-MN (sic) and 349 U-3246-NP. Nowhere to be
found were nos. 349 L-2560-FQ and L-3560-FQ. This means that it was not possible for
Despite the foregoing announcement, on 9 July 1992, respondent Pagdanganan demanded from both defendants to have won during the entire extended period of the sales promotion of
petitioners PCPPI and PEPSICO and the DTI the payment of the corresponding cash prize of each of Pepsi Cola because the number did not appear in the master list. It was made clear in the
his "349" bearing crown, specifically, four 7-Up9 crowns and two Mirinda10 crowns, each displaying advertisements and posters put up by defendants that to win, the 3-digit number must be
the cash prize of P1,000,000.00 in addition to one 7-Up11 crown showing the cash prize matched with the proper security code. The Department of Trade and Industry had been
of P100,000.00. Notably, all seven crowns bore the security code L-2560-FQ. duly informed of the mechanics of the Pepsi Cola sales promotion for the protection of
the interest of the public.
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 7-Up crowns with one exhibiting the cash value Anent the award of P3,500.00 and P1,000.00 to respondents Pagdanganan and Lumahan,
of P1,000,000.00 and the other the amount of P100,000.00. respectively, the RTC justified such grant, by stating to wit:

Petitioners PCPPI and PEPSICO refused to take heed of the aforementioned demands. x x x since the defendants have voluntarily announced their desire to pay holders of caps
or crowns of their products bearing non-winning number 349 as a sign of goodwill, the
Court feels that this privilege should also be extended to the plaintiffs despite the
Affronted by the seeming injustice, respondents Pagdanganan and Lumahan filed a collective
institution of the instant case.
complaint12 forSum of Money and Damages before the RTC of Pasig City, Branch 163, against
petitioners PCPPI and PEPSICO.
Their Partial Motion for Reconsideration13 having been denied in an Order14 dated 23 August 2000,
respondents Pagdanganan and Lumahan appealed their case to the Court of Appeals.
After trial on the merits, the RTC rendered its decision on 3 August 2000, the dispositive part of
which states that:
In a Decision15 promulgated on 13 February 2004, the Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the
decision of the RTC, the fallo of which reads:
WHEREFORE, for failure of the plaintiffs to establish a cause of action against defendants,
the instant case is hereby DISMISSED.
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-appellants are hereby
The defendants are hereby ordered to pay plaintiffs Pagdanganan and Lumahan the
ORDERED to pay plaintiffs-appellants Pepe Pagdanganan the sum of P5 million and Pepito
amounts of P3,500.00 and P1,000.00, respectively.
Lumahan the sum of P1.2 million.

Without costs.
In a Resolution dated 26 April 2005, the Court of Appeals denied petitioners PCPPI and
PEPSICO’s Motion for Reconsideration.
SO ORDERED.
The Issues
In dismissing the complaint, the RTC ratiocinated that:
Hence, this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, as amended,
The preponderance of evidence now on record does not appear to support the assertion predicated on the following issues:16
of the plaintiffs that number 349 with security code number L-2560-FQ won the Pepsico’s
sales promotion game for May 26, 1992. While it is true that number 349 was used both
I.
as a winning and non-winning number, still the winning 349 must tally with the
corresponding security code contained in the master list of winning crowns.
WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONERS ARE ESTOPPED FROM RAISING STARE DECISIS;
xxxx
II.

2
 WHETHER OR NOT RODRIGO, MENDOZA, PATAN AND DE MESA ARE BINDING ALTHOUGH xxxx
RESPONDENTS WERE NOT PARTIES THEREIN;
It is highly inequitable for PEPSI to impose an additional requirement in order to win as a
III. way to evade the unusually large number of 349 winner-claimants. x x x.

WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENTS RAISE ANY ISSUE THAT HAS NOT BEEN PREVIOUSLY Petitioners PCPPI and PEPSICO fault the appellate court for disregarding this Court’s
RESOLVED IN RODRIGO, MENDOZA, PATAN OR DE MESA; 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 L-2560-FQ and L-3560-FQ, like
IV. those held by respondents Pagdanganan and Lumahan, are non-winning crowns under the terms of
the "Number Fever" promo. They reckon that, by virtue of the principle of stare decisis, the
aforementioned cases have already settled the issue of whether or not petitioners PCPPI and
WHETHER OR NOT THE SENATE AND DTI TASK FORCE REPORTS ARE EVEN RELEVANT, OR
PEPSICO are liable to holders of non-winning "349" bearing crowns and/or resealable caps. Simply
CONTROLLING; and
put, the principle of stare decisis should have been determinative of the outcome of the case at bar.
"Rodrigo, Mendoza, Patan and De Mesa cases having ruled on the very same issues raised in the
V. case at bar, they constitute binding judicial precedents on how Pepsi/"349" litigations must be
disposed of.
WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENTS MAY SEEK AFFIRMATIVE RELIEF WITHOUT HAVING
APPEALED. On the other hand, respondents Pagdanganan and Lumahan justify the non-application of the
principle of stare decisis by stating that "it is required that the legal rights and relations of the
In essence, the present petition raises as fundamental issue for resolution by the Court the question parties, and the facts, and the applicable laws, the issue and evidence are exactly the same, (sic) as
of whether or not the instant case is already barred by our rulings in the cases those decided in the cases of Rodrigo,Mendoza and later the de Mesa x x x".21 They contend,
of Rodrigo,17 Mendoza,18 Patan19 and, the most recent, De Mesa. 20 however, that "a comparison of the subject cases show that they are not the same nor identical x x
x as evident in the different questions of law, the findings of facts and evidence and issues involved
The Court’s Ruling in said cases x x x."22 In fact, respondents Pagdanganan and Lumahan particularly argue that the
basis of their action is Breach of Contract while that of the Rodrigo and Mendoza cases involved
complaints for Specific Performance.
In ordering petitioners PCPPI and PEPSICO to pay respondents Pagdanganan and Lumahan the
amounts ofP5,000,000.00 and P1,200,000.00, the appellate court articulated that:
The petition is meritorious.

x x x [w]e fully agree with the contention of plaintiffs-appellants that such deviation or
additional requirement, that is the winning crown must have a corresponding winning There is no question that the cases of Mendoza, Rodrigo, Patan and De Mesa, including the case at
security code, imposed by PEPSI was a deviation from the rules approved by DTI. bar, arose from the same set of facts concerning the "Number Fever" promo debacle of petitioners
PCPPI and PEPSICO. Mendoza, Rodrigo, Patan, De Mesa, Pagdanganan and Lumahan are among
those holding supposedly winning "349" Pepsi/7-Up/Mirinda/Mountain Dew soft drink crowns
xxxx and/or resealable caps. Said crowns and/or resealable caps were not honored or allowed to be
cashed in by petitioners PCPPI and PEPSICO for failing to contain the correct security code assigned
x x x [i]t appeared that the matching winning security with code is not an express to such winning combination. As a result, the rejected crown and/or resealable cap holders filed
requirement in order to win. Taken together with printed promo mechanics, this means separate complaints for specific performance/ sum of money/ breach of contract, with damages, all
that one is a winner as long as he has in his possession the crown with the winning against petitioners PCPPI and PEPSICO.
number. The matching winning security code is not required.
A survey of said cases is imperative in order to determine whether or not the principle of stare
With the promo mechanics as the guide, it is undisputable that plaintiffs-appellants are decisis will, indeed, bar the relitigation of the instant case.
very well entitled to the cash prizes indicated on their crowns. To deny their claim despite
their compliance with the unequivocal requirements of the promotion is contrary to the
principle of good faith.

3
In 2001, in the case of Mendoza v. Pepsi-Cola Products Phils., Inc. and Pepsico, Inc .,23 the RTC Similarly, in 2002, in Rodrigo v. Pepsi Cola Products (Phils.), Inc. and Pepsico, Inc., the RTC therein
dismissed the complaint for specific performance and damages against herein petitioners PCPPI and dismissed the complaint for Specific Performance and Damages filed against herein petitioners
PEPSICO. On appeal24with the Court of Appeals, the latter dismissed the appeal for lack of merit and PCPPI and PEPSICO. The Court of Appeals then affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, stating that:
affirmed the dismissal of the complaint. It rationalized that:
To resolve the pivotal issue of whether the appellants are the real winners of the promo,
The mechanics for the "Number Fever" promo, both in the original period and for the the various advertisements must be read together to give effect to all. From the start of
extension period, was duly approved by the DTI. Television, radio and print the promotion, Pepsi had highlighted the security code as a major component of each and
advertisements for the promo passed through and were by the DTI. Posters explaining the every crown. In subsequent posters, the companies clarified its role as a measure against
promo mechanics were posted all over the country and warning ads in newspapers tampering or faking crowns. (sic), and emphasized the important role of the security code
highlighted the importance of the security code. Plaintiff-appellant admitted to have read in identifying and verifying the real winning crown. In its ‘Warning Cheaters’ posters, the
and understood the mechanics of the promo. His different interpretation of the security third paragraph succinctly provides that:
code’s 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 ‘Thus if a supposed winning crown is presented to us where the security code
authenticated by PEPSI against its official list. The importance of a matching security code does not match the real security code of the winning number as verified with
had been adequately emphasized in the Warning Ads (citation omitted) and in the new our master list (known only to authorized personnel of Pepsi and DTI), then we
campaign posters (citation omitted) during the extension period both of which were duly know that the Crown is either fake or tampered with.’ (Citation omitted.)
approved by DTI.
Also (sic) the companies published that:
xxxx
‘Every crown/cap with a winning number and Authenticated security wins the
The function of the security code is not limited to the determination of whether or not a amount printed on the crown/cap.’ (Citation omitted.)
crown is tampered with or fake. It also serves to authenticate the winning number
combination whether it had the correct alpha-numeric security code uniquely assigned to
Given said advertisements, the impression an ordinary consumer gets is that the security
each crown as appearing in PEPSI’s official list. The campaign posters for the promo period
code distinguishes the ‘real’ or genuine from the fake winning crown, especially
February 17, 1992 to May 10, 1992 as well as for the extension period from May 11, 1992
considering the conditions surrounding their issuance i.e., that as early as March 1992,
to June 12, 1992 uniformly enumerated three (3) essential elements of a participating
various complaints of tampered crowns had reached the DTI. This construction is
winning crown, to wit: (1) 3-digit winning number; (2) prize denomination; and (3) 7-digit
bolstered by the subsequent release of the ‘NUMBER FEVER MORE CHANCES TO WIN’
alpha-numeric security code. x x x The promo mechanics stressed that the 3-digit winning
posters during the extension period wherein the security code is defined as a ‘measure
number combination must have an authenticated security code, which security code was
against tampering or faking of crowns’ (citation omitted) and in the subsequent
unique to every crown. Thus, plaintiff-appellant’s ‘349’ crown must also be measured
advertisements which warned the consuming public that the appellee companies would
against the essential elements of a winning participating crown pursuant to the promo’s
not honor under any circumstances any fake or tampered crown. (Citation omitted.)
mechanics.

The inescapable conclusion is that the crowns held by the appellants are not winning
xxxx
crowns. x x x .

Thus, PEPSI’s obligation to redeem plaintiff-appellant’s ‘349’ crown did not arise as his
Undaunted, Rodrigo went to this Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari but we subsequently
crown did not bear the correct security code, a condition precedent to winning the
denied his petition, in a Resolution dated 1 October 2001, for failure to show that a reversible error
proffered prize.
was committed by the Court of Appeals, hence the aforequoted disquisition was affirmed.

A Petition for Review on Certiorari was then filed with this Court. In a Resolution dated 24 July 2002,
Promulgated in 2003, in Pepsi Cola Products (Phils.) vs. Patan, Jr., the RTC therein dismissed two
we denied Mendoza’s petition for review for failing to show that the Court of Appeals committed
consolidated complaints for specific performance and damages against herein petitioners PCPPI and
reversible error.25
PEPSICO for lack of cause of action. The Court of Appeals substantially affirmed the findings of the
trial court that therein respondents did not win in the petitioners’ "Number Fever" promotional
campaign as their crowns were not the winning crowns. The appellate court, however, awarded

4
therein respondents P500 each in the interest of justice. When the case came to the Court by P500 for his non-winning "349" crown. Unlike the other holders of the non-winning "349"
means of a Petition for Review on Certiorari, the finding that the correct security code is an crowns, x x x who availed themselves of the goodwill money offered by the petitioner,
indispensable requirement to be entitled to the cash prize is concerned, was affirmed. The award of respondent Patan, Jr. rejected the same.
P500 though was deleted as it was our stance that the offer of P500 for every non-winning "349"
crown had long expired on 12 June 1992. xxxx

And, in the 2005 case of De Mesa v. Pepsi Cola Products Phils., Inc., the RTC dismissed the case In this case, the petitioner’s offer of P500 for every non-winning "349" crown had long
under the principle of stare decisis. It elucidated that the instant case, as well as the expired on June 12, 1992. The petitioner cannot now be compelled to pay respondent
2001 Mendoza case, not only are the legal rights and relations of the parties substantially the same Patan, Jr. P500 as a "goodwill gesture," since he had already rejected 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 evidence are identical such that a ruling in
The doctrine of stare decisis embodies the legal maxim that a principle or rule of law which has
one case, under the principle of stare decisis, is a bar to any attempt to relitigate the same issue.
been established by the decision of a court of controlling jurisdiction will be followed in other cases
Subsequently, De Mesa et al., filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before us challenging the
involving a similar situation. It is founded on the necessity for securing certainty and stability in the
application of the principle of stare decisis to said case. In a Decision promulgated 19 August 2005,
law and does not require identity of or privity of parties. 28 This is unmistakable from the wordings of
we denied their recourse to this court and affirmed the dismissal of the complaint. We held that:
Article 8 of the Civil Code. It is even said that such decisions "assume the same authority as the
statute itself and, until authoritatively abandoned, necessarily become, to the extent that they are
In the instant case, the legal rights and relations of the parties, the facts, the applicable applicable, the criteria which must control the actuations not only of those called upon to decide
laws, the causes of action, the issues, and the evidence are exactly the same as those in thereby but also of those in duty bound to enforce obedience thereto." 29 Abandonment thereof
the decided cases of Mendoza andRodrigo, supra. Hence, nothing is left to be argued. The must be based only on strong and compelling reasons, otherwise, the becoming virtue of
issue has been settled and this Court’s final decision in the said cases must be respected. predictability which is expected from this Court would be immeasurably affected and the public’s
This Court’s hands are now tied by the finality of the said judgments. We have no recourse confidence in the stability of the solemn pronouncements diminished.
but to deny the instant petition.
To reiterate, there is naught that is left to be brought to court. Those things which have been so
The principle of stare decisis et non quieta movere (to adhere to precedents and not to unsettle often adjudged ought to rest in peace.30
things which are established) is well entrenched in Article 8 of the Civil Code, to wit: 26
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is GRANTED. The assailed 13 February 2004
ART. 8. Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form a Decision and 26 April 2005 Resolution both of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 68290, are
part of the legal system of the Philippines. hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 163,
in Civil Case No. 62726 dismissing the complaint for Sum of Money and Damages is REINSTATED.
With the above provision of law, in tandem with the foregoing judicial pronouncements, it is quite Further, respondents Pepe B. Pagdanganan and Pepito A. Lumahan, are not entitled to the award
evident that the appellate court committed reversible error in failing to take heed of our final, and of P3,500.00 and P1,000.00, respectively, as goodwill compensation.
executory decisions – those decisions considered to have attained the status of judicial precedents
in so far as the Pepsi/"349" cases are concerned. For it is the better practice that when a court has SO ORDERED.
laid down a principle of law as applicable to a certain state of facts, it will adhere to that principle
and apply it to all future cases where the facts are substantially the same. 27 In the case at bar,
Panganiban, C.J. (Chairperson), Ynares-Santiago, Austria-Martinez, and Callejo, Sr., JJ., concur.
therefore, we have no alternative but to uphold the ruling that the correct security code is an
essential, nay, critical, requirement in order to become entitled to the amount printed on a "349"
bearing crown and/or resealable cap.

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, as goodwill
compensation. As we have stated on the case of Patan:

Neither is the award of P500 to respondent Patan, Jr. "in the interest of justice and
equity" warranted. Respondent Patan, jr. had consistently refused the petitioner’s offer of
5
  
The facts are undisputed.
 
Petitioner PCPPI is a domestic corporation engaged in the production, bottling, and
distribution of soft drink products namely, Pepsi, 7-Up, Mirinda, and Mountain Dew. Petitioner PI is
a foreign corporation licensed to do business in the Philippines and is the major stockholder of
tHIRD DIVISION PCPPI. Respondent Jaime Lacanilao is a holder of two soft drink bottle caps bearing the number 349.
 
The controversy began when petitioners hired D.G. Consultores, a Mexican consulting
PEPSICO, INC., now known as the PEPSI COLA G.R. No. 146007 firm, to randomly pre-select the winning numbers and send a list of the 60 winning combination
COMPANY,   with their corresponding security codes. The process of selecting the winning numbers was
Petitioner, Present: conducted with the approval of the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI).
     
  QUISUMBING, J., Chairperson, Accordingly, during the initial promotional period from February 17 to May 8, 1992,
- versus - CARPIO, petitioners seeded 1000 numbers, 60 of which were winning numbers, 510 were non-winning
  CARPIO MORALES, numbers, and the remaining 430 were unused. [3] To ensure that the winning numbers would not be
  TINGA, and tampered, the DTI required petitioners to submit the list of the winning numbers including their
JAIME LACANILAO, VELASCO, JR., JJ. security codes and to deposit the said list in a safety deposit box in a bank.
Respondent.   Owing to its success, petitioners extended the Number Fever promotion by five more
  weeks, from May 12 to June 12, 1992. Petitioners again tapped D.G. Consultores to predetermine
x-----------------------x the 25 additional winning numbers from the list of unused numbers.
     
PEPSI-COLA PRODUCTS PHILS., INC., G.R. No. 146295 On May 25, 1992, petitioners announced 349 as the winning number. It turned out that
Petitioner,   the draw was marred by a security code problem. Quintin J. Gomez, Jr., then PCPPIs Marketing
    Services Manager, immediately called the DTI to relay the information that a mistake had been
    made in the announcement of 349 as the winning number.On May 28, 1992, petitioners, together
- versus -   with the DTI, opened the safety deposit box where the list of winning numbers had been kept and it
    was verified that crowns bearing the number 349 and security codes L-2560-FQ and L-3560-FQ were
  Promulgated: not winning crowns.
COURT OF APPEALS and JAIME LACANILAO,    
Respondents.   Consequently, petitioners did not honor holders of crowns bearing the number 349 with security
June 2006 codes L-2560-FQ and L-3560-FQ. Some of these rejected crown holders, tenaciously believing that they were
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x entitled to the cash prize, resorted to violence against petitioners employees and properties.
 
To appease the holders of the non-winning 349 crowns, petitioners offered to pay P500
DECISION for every non-winning 349 crown that would be presented on or before June 12, 1992. About
QUISUMBING, J.: 490,116[4] holders of non-winning 349 crowns took advantage of petitioners goodwill gesture.
Once again, the Court is called upon to rule on the rights and liabilities of the parties involved in  
the ill-fated Number Fever fiasco that befell Pepsi-Cola Products Phils., Inc. (PCPPI) and PEPSICO, Still, a great many disgruntled holders of the non-winning 349 crowns, including
Inc. (PI) more than a decade ago involving the number combination 349. respondent herein, filed against petitioners separate complaints for recovery of the cash prize and
  damages. Three of such cases, Rodrigo v. PCPPI, Mendoza v. PCPPI, and De Mesa v. Pepsi Cola
The instant consolidated petition for review on certiorari is an appeal from the Products Phils., Inc.[5] were dismissed at the trial court level, but eventually reached this Court.
Decision[1] dated February 4, 1999 and Resolution [2] dated November 10, 2000 of the Court of  
Appeals in CA G.R. CV No. 50438, which ordered petitioners to pay respondent the sum In the Rodrigo and Mendoza  cases, this Court denied the petition for review on certiorari
of P1,050,000 as aggregate prize for two allegedly winning crowns in the promotional campaign for failure to show that a reversible error had been committed by the Court of Appeals in affirming
sponsored by petitioners.

6
the trial courts finding that the security code was an indispensable element of a winning crown and No costs.
that PCPPI and PI were not negligent in the conduct of their promotional campaign.
  SO ORDERED.[7]
In the De Mesa case, on the other hand, the trial court dismissed the complaint outright
based on the principle of stare decisis. Upon review on certiorari, this Court affirmed the trial courts
dismissal of the complaint considering the finality of the parallel cases of Rodrigo and Mendoza. Hence, the instant consolidated petition separately filed by PCPPI and PI. Petitioner PCPPI
  submitted the following issues:
As for the complaint filed by respondent Jaime Lacanilao, the trial court ruled differently,
to wit: I.                    WHETHER OR NOT THIS CASE SHOULD BE DISMISSED ON THE BASIS
OF THE RESOLUTIONS OF THIS HONORABLE COURT IN THE CASE
WHEREFORE, finding preponderance of evidence in favor of the OF RODRIGO.
plaintiff, judgment is hereby rendered against the defendants as follows:
II.                 WHETHER OR NOT PEPSIS COMPROMISE WITH MR. LACANILAO IS
1)      Declaring the plaintiff as rightful winner in the Number Fever CONTRARY TO LAW, MORALS, GOOD CUSTOMS, PUBLIC POLICY OR
promotional campaign conducted by the defendants from February 17, 1992 up PUBLIC ORDER.
to June 12, 1992, and entitled to the prize agreed upon;
III.               WHETHER OR NOT MR. LACANILAO HAS EXPRESSLY WAIVED HIS
2)      Ordering the defendants jointly and severally to pay the plaintiff CLAIMS AGAINST PEPSI.
the amount of P1,050,000.00 representing his legitimate prize for two (2)
winning crowns within ten (10) days from finality of this decision with legal IV.              WHETHER OR NOT THE TERMS OF THE NUMBER FEVER PROMOTION
interest until [fully] paid; CLEARLY STATED THAT EACH CROWN/CAP WITH A WINNING NUMBER
AND AUTHENTICATED SECURITY CODE WINS THE AMOUNT PRINTED
3)      Ordering the defendants to pay the plaintiff jointly and severally ON THE CROWN/CAP.
the amount of P100,000.00 as moral damages, P100,000.00 as exemplary
damages, P25,000.00 as attorneys fees and P25,000.00 as reimbursement for V.                 WHETHER OR NOT THE MECHANICS OF THE NUMBER FEVER
transportation and meals with costs; PROMOTION AMOUNTS TO A CONTRACT OF ADHESION.

4)      Dismissing defendants counterclaim for being frivolous and VI.              WHETHER OR NOT PEPSI WAS AWARE OF THE HIDDEN DEFECT IN THE
unsubstantiated.[6] MASTER LIST OF WINNING CROWNS FOR THE EXTENSION PERIOD
WHEN, IN GOOD FAITH, IT OFFERED 349 AS THE NUMBER OF A
WINNING CROWN.
The Court of Appeals, in its assailed Decision, affirmed with modification
the aforequoted judgment, thus: VII.            WHETHER OR NOT THE OFFER HAD ALREADY BEEN WITHDRAWN AT
THE TIME MR. LACANILAO ACCEPTED PEPSIS OFFER OF 349 AS THE
WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, the Decision of the lower NUMBER OF A WINNING CROWN FOR 26 MAY 1992.
court in Civil Case No. 92-13022 dated 20 July 1995, is hereby MODIFIED. The
portion of the said Decision declaring plaintiff-appellant Jaime Lacanilao as a VIII.         WHETHER OR NOT D.G. CONSULTORES WAS AN INDEPENDENT
lawful winner of the Number Fever promotion conducted by defendants- CONTRACTOR, NOT AN AGENT, OF PEPSI.
appellants, and ordering the latter to pay unto plaintiff-appellant (sic) the sum of
PESOS: ONE MILLION FIFTY THOUSAND (P1,050,000.00) as the aggregate prize IX.              WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS PROOF OF A COMPARABLE SNAFU
for two (2) winning crowns (one for P1,000,000.00 and another for P50,000.00), IN CHILE.
together with legal interests thereon from 25 May 1992 until the same is paid in
full, and the dismissal of defendants-appellants counterclaims, are hereby
X.                 WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPLAINT BELOW SHOULD HAVE BEEN
AFFIRMED. The award of moral and exemplary damages, attorneys fees and
DISMISSED FOR LACK OF THE REQUIRED CERTIFICATE OF NON-FORUM
costs of litigation in the form of reimbursement for transportation and meals, is
SHOPPING.
however REVERSED and DELETED.
7
XI.              WHETHER OR NOT PAYMENT OF NON-WINNING 349 CROWNS BY For his part, respondent Jaime Lacanilao in his Comment [10] abandoned all claims against
PEPSI WOULD RENDER THE SERVICE SO DIFFICULT AS TO BE petitioners. He instead confirmed the execution of a compromise agreement where he had waived
MANIFESTLY BEYOND THE CONTEMPLATION OF THE PARTIES.[8] and withdrawn all claims subject of his complaint against petitioners. He reiterated the
Manifestation dated October 29, 1999, which he filed with the Court of Appeals, to the effect that
he joins petitioners motion for reconsideration of the appellate courts judgment.
Petitioner PI, on the other hand, put forth the following issues:  
As respondent has joined petitioners cause and considering the recent pronouncement of
A. Whether or not the Court of Appeals had the authority to rule on this Court in De Mesa v. Pepsi Cola Products Phils., Inc., [11] the sole issue for resolution now is
respondents claims, even after the latter had expressly waived his cause of whether the principle of stare decisis can likewise be applied in the instant case.
action and prayed to set aside the judgment in his favor.  
We rule in the affirmative.
B. Whether or not the fundamental principles of res judicata and stare  
decisis should be applied in this case in view of previous, final and executory When a court has laid down a principle of law as applicable to a certain set of facts, it will
judgments on the same facts and issues. adhere to that principle and apply it to all future cases in which the facts are substantially the
same. Stare decisis et non quieta movere. Stand by the decision and disturb not what is
settled. It simply means that a conclusion reached in one case should be applied to those that
C. Whether or not the Court of Appeals, in disregarding:
follow if the facts are substantially the same, even though the parties may be different. It comes
from the basic principle of justice that like cases ought to be decided alike. Thus, where the same
i.         the nature of the Number Fever Promotion, as an
question relating to the same event is brought by parties similarly situated as in a previous case
under-the-crown promotion, where only specific preselected
already litigated and decided by a competent court, the rule of stare decisis is a bar to any attempt
crowns seeded into the trade were intended to win; and
to relitigate the same issue.[12]
 
ii.       the rules of the promotion whereby the security codes, The Rodrigo  and  Mendoza cases were both decided by this Court through a minute
along with the printed three (3)-digit numbers and prizes, resolution. It is axiomatic that when a minute resolution denies a petition for lack of merit, the challenged
identified each specific preselected crown, decision, together with its findings of fact and legal conclusions, is deemed sustained.[13]
 
decided questions of substance in a manner not in accord with law and the law The De Mesa case, on the other hand, was decided on the strength of the stare
between the parties. decisis doctrine considering that the legal rights and relations of the parties, the facts,  theapplicable
laws, the causes of action, the issues, and the evidence are exactly the same as those in the decided
D. Whether or not the Court of Appeals conclusion that D.G. cases of Rodrigo and Mendoza.
Consultores was not an independent contractor, but an agent of Pepsi, is in  
accordance with applicable jurisprudence. The instant case falls squarely within the same set of facts as the Rodrigo, Mendoza,  and  De
Mesa cases, which all ruled that the security code number was an indispensable element of a winning
E. Whether or not Pepsi was negligent in the conduct of the crown and that petitioners were not negligent in the conduct of their promotional campaign.
promotion. Assuming arguendo that Pepsi was negligent, whether or not it was  
proper to award the prizes indicated on the 349 crowns to respondent, rather The issues surrounding the 349 incident have been laid to rest and must no longer be disturbed
than the actual damages proximately caused by the alleged negligence. in this decision. Otherwise, a situation could arise where decisions would conflict, rendering inutile the
Courts finding in the earlier cases, and undermining the integrity of the Court and its capacity to dispense
F. Whether or not mistake, under which petitioner labored, vitiated its justice equally.
consent, and that unilateral mistake suffices to annul a contract.  
Accordingly, since respondent Jaime Lacanilao is not a holder of the winning 349 crowns,
G. Whether or not Article 1267 of the Civil Code and the doctrine of petitioners are not liable to him for the payment of the cash prize. Further, there being no proof of
adjustment of rights apply in this case.[9] negligence on the part of petitioners in the conduct of their promotional campaign, neither should
they be held liable to respondent for damages.Respondent having withdrawn all claims against
petitioners, and all parties now united in seeking reconsideration of the appellate courts judgment,
the reversal of the appellate courts judgment is in order.

8
  
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated February 4, 1999 and
the Resolution dated November 10, 2000 of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. CV No. 50438,
are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
 
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.