DE MESA v. PEPSI COLA PRODUCTS PHILIPPINES, INC., PEPSICO INC.

,
(Quisumbing, Aug. 19, 2005)

FACTS:

- Same as Mendoza v. Pepsi Cola Products Philippines, Inc. which affirmed CA decision and
Rodrigo v. Pepsi Cola Products Philippines, Inc., which also affirmed CA decision
- facts culled from said CA DECISIONS
- petitioners are bearers of soft drink bottle caps numbered 349 which is the winning
combination in a contest which PEPSI sponsors
- Respondent is a domestic corporation engaged in production, bottling, distribution of bottling
drinks, PEPSICO is foreign
- D.G. Consultores from Mexico is the firm that handled the said promotions, tasked to
randomly pre-select pre-winning numbers and send to respondents a list of 60 winning
numbers with their corresponding security codes. The process of selection was approved by
DTI.
- From Feb 17 to May 8, 1992, respondents seeded 1000 numbers (60 winning, 510 non-
winning, remaining 430 were unused). To prevent tampering of winning numbers, DTI
requested for list of winning numbers and it was deposited in a safety box.
- Due to its success, PEPSI tapped D.G. again to predetermine 25 more winning numbers for the
extension of the Number Fever promo for 5 more weeks (May 10-June 12,1992)
- May 25, 1992 - respondents announced 349 as winning number for May 26 draw. The same
night, Quintin Gomez of PCPPI’s Marketing Services called DTI Director informing her that a
mistake had occurred.
- Numerous holders were not paid, leading to filing of separate complaints for specific
performance and damages.
- Two of the complaints that pushed through were the Mendoza and Rodrigo cases.
- Mendoza case was dismissed for lack of merit by RTC and CA, and ultimately in SC.
- Same thing happened in Rodrigo case. In SC, MR was also filed but was also denied with
finality.
- Prior to resolution of Mendoza and Rodrigo cases, herein petitioners filed with RTC a motion
to leave to 1) adopt previous testimonial and documentary evidence in the 2 cases, and 2)
archive the case until final resolution of two cases, which were then pending in CA. RTC granted
motion and case was subsequently archived.
- Feb 5, 2002 - Rodrigo case became final and executory
- Feb 20, 2002 – respondents filed for motion to dismiss, invoking stare decisis.
- RTC granted motion to dismiss ratiocinating: “The said doctrine embodies the legal maxim
that a principle or rule of law which has been established by the decision of a court of
controlling jurisdiction will be followed in other cases involving similar situation.”
-Petitioner asks Court to review, contending that res judicata and stare decisis do not apply,
since there is no identity of parties, and that the latter is not a hard and fast rule. They were
also complaining of breach of contract.
ISSUES and HOLDING:
1. W/N the present case is barred by Mendoza and Rodrigo decisions - YES.
- The principle of stare decisis et non quieta movere is entrenched in ARTICLE 8 of the Civil
code
- “ART. 8. Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall
form a part of the legal system of the Philippines.”
- 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 decided cases of Mendoza and Rodrigo, supra. Hence, nothing is left to be argued.
The issue has been settled and this Courts final decision in the said cases must be
respected. This Courts hands are now tied by the finality of the said judgments. We have
no recourse but to deny the instant petition.
PETITION DENIED.