Conclusive

A point of law, once established by the court, will generally be followed by the same court and by all courts of lower rank in subsequent cases involving a similar legal issue (stare decisis et non-quieta movere). This is the principle applied in these cases of numerous claimants headed by Rely involving the “number fever promo” prizes given out by a bottling company (PCPI) way back in 1992.

In several previous cases involving this 349 number fever promo conducted by PCPI, the Supreme Court had already and consistently held that the correct security code of the crowns bearing number 349 was an indispensable requirement to be entitled to the cash prize concerned (Pepsi Cola vs. Patan 419 SCRA 417; De Mesa vs. Pepsi Cola 467 SCRA 433; Pepsi Cola vs. Lacanilao 490 SCRA 615; Pepsi vs. Pagdanganan 504 SCRA 549).

The case of Rely and his group who were holders of the 349 crowns originated from complaints for sum of money and damages as well as specific performance and damages in the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City.

They were not actually claiming the supposed prizes they won for holding said 349 crowns but for the pain, suffering, mental anguish, broken dreams or hopes, serious anxiety, wounded feelings, moral shock, embarrassment and humiliation because of the gross negligence or fraud committed by PCPI.

The Pepsi crowns held by Rely and his group bear the number 349 with security code L-2560-FQ or L-3560-FQ. In the original promo period the number of said crowns with said security codes was not chosen as a winning number. PCPI however decided to extend the promo period. For this extended period the number 349 was chosen as a winning number but the security codes for these crowns were security codes for the extended period, not L-2530-FQ or 3560-FQ. The problem arose because the original 349 with L-2530-F or L-3560-FQ was still in circulation during the extended promo period although in its promotional materials, PCPI repeatedly emphasized the importance of alpha-numeric security code and clearly stated that the code printed on each crown was its only means to verify the genuineness of the winning crown.

On December 15, 1997, the RTC found PCPI guilty of negligence and rendered a decision in favor of Rely and his group. It ordered PCPI to pay each of them (not for each 349 crown) P20,000 moral damages and P10,000 exemplary damages. On appeal, the Court of Appeals however reversed the RTC decision and ruled that PCPI was not negligent in the conduct of its promo. Was the CA correct?

Yes. Over the past years, decisions have already been promulgated in a number of cases involving the 349 number fever promo. In said cases it was consistently held that the correct security code is an indispensable requirement for entitlement to cash prize. Under the principle of stare decisis, like case ought to be decided alike in the absence of powerful countervailing considerations.

In this case, Rely and his companions held crowns bearing either security code L-2530-FQ or L-3560-FQ. These codes however were not the security codes for the 349 crowns issued during the extended period of the promo. Thus Rely and his group were never entitled to any prize especially because PCPI has repeatedly emphasized the importance of these security codes (Cabigon et. al. vs. Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines Inc. G.R. 168030, December 19, 2007).

Reminder to all UST alumni: General homecoming on February 16, 2008 at the Plaza mayor, UST Campus starting 4 p.m. For further details call Mike Malicsi of the Office of Alumni Relations, 09229621004, e-mail [email protected]

E-mail at: [email protected]