Pepsico v. Patan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Pepsi Cola Products (Phils.), Inc. launched the "Number Fever" under-the-crown promotional campaign, approved and supervised by the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). Winning crowns were seeded nationwide, with winning number combinations listed in a UCPB safety deposit box. On May 25, 1992, the petitioner announced "349" as the first three digits of the winning combination for the next day. Subsequently, reports emerged of people attempting to redeem non-winning crowns with "349" and specific security codes, claiming prizes of P100,000 and P1,000,000. Upon joint opening of the safety deposit box by the DTI and petitioner on May 28, 1992, it was verified that these "349" crowns were indeed non-winning. To appease holders and avert violence, petitioner offered P500 for every non-winning "349" crown presented by June 12, 1992. A total of 490,116 holders accepted this offer. Procedural History: Respondents Rustico Patan, Jr., Gregorio Apanto, Jr., Genelyn Pongcol, and Dennis Pestano, holders of non-winning "349" crowns, refused the P500 offer and filed separate complaints for specific performance and recovery of prize with damages. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Surigao City, after joint trial, dismissed their complaints for lack of cause of action or insufficiency of evidence. Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). However, the appeals of Apanto, Jr. and Pongcol were dismissed for failure to pay docket fees, while Pestano failed to file an appellant's brief. Only Patan, Jr. filed an appellant's brief. The CA, in its Decision dated October 18, 2001, affirmed the RTC's findings that respondents did not win and that petitioner was not negligent. Nevertheless, the CA awarded all respondents P500 each "in the interest of justice and equity." Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioner seeks to reverse the CA's award of P500 to each respondent based solely on equity, arguing it deviates from jurisprudence, especially since the CA found no fault or negligence on petitioner's part. Petitioner also argues that affirmative relief should not have been granted to Apanto, Jr., Pongcol, and Pestano, whose appeals were not perfected. Furthermore, petitioner contends the CA violated res judicata and stare decisis by not following previous final judgments on similar facts.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in ordering the petitioner to pay the respondents P500 each solely "in the interest of justice and equity" despite finding that the petitioner was neither at fault nor negligent in the conduct of its "Number Fever" promotional campaign. Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in according affirmative relief to respondents Apanto, Jr., Pongcol, and Pestano, whose respective appeals were never perfected.
Ruling
The Court ruled in the affirmative. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated October 18, 2001, in CA-G.R. CV No. 60383, was affirmed with modification. The award of P500 to each of the respondents was deleted.
Ratio Decidendi
On the award of P500 to respondent Patan, Jr. on the ground of equity: The Court found that the award of P500 to respondent Patan, Jr. "in the interest of justice and equity" was also unwarranted. Patan, Jr. had consistently refused the petitioner's offer of P500 for his non-winning "349" crown, unlike the approximately 490,116 other holders who availed themselves of the goodwill money. The offer had a stated expiration date of June 12, 1992. The Court reiterated the principle that "Justice is done according to law. As a rule, equity follows the law." While there may be a moral obligation, if there is no enforceable legal duty, the action must fail. The petitioner could not be compelled to pay Patan, Jr. P500 as a "goodwill gesture" since he had already rejected the expired offer. The Court emphasized that courts intervene not merely because a party has suffered loss, but because there has been a violation of law or the commission of an actionable wrong. On the award of P500 to respondents Apanto, Jr., Pongcol, and Pestano: The Court held that the CA committed reversible error in awarding P500 to these respondents. It was undisputed that their appeals were not perfected: Apanto, Jr. and Pongcol failed to pay the requisite docket fees, leading to the dismissal of their appeals which had become final and recorded in the Book of Entries of Judgment. Pestano failed to file his appeal brief, constituting an abandonment of his appeal. The rule is clear that parties who fail to perfect their appeals cannot obtain affirmative relief from the appellate court other than what they obtained from the lower court. Therefore, the CA's modification of the judgment to award P500 each to these respondents was improper.
Main Doctrine
The Court of Appeals committed reversible error in awarding P500 to respondents on the ground of equity when the petitioner was found neither at fault nor negligent, and in granting affirmative relief to respondents whose appeals were not perfected.