The Supreme Court affirmed that holders of ‘349’ crowns from Pepsi-Cola’s 1992 ‘Number Fever’ promo with incorrect security codes were not entitled to prizes. This decision underscores the importance of adhering strictly to the terms and conditions of promotional offers, as explicitly communicated by the company. For consumers, this means understanding and verifying all requirements before participating in any promotional activity to avoid disappointment and potential legal battles. Pepsi-Cola clearly stated that the alpha-numeric security code printed on each crown was the only means to verify the genuineness of the winning crown.

The Pepsi ‘Number Fever’ Debacle: When a Security Code Determined Millions

This case, Aurelio Cabigon, et al. vs. Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc., revolves around the infamous 1992 “Number Fever” promo by Pepsi-Cola. The petitioners, possessing ‘349’ crowns, filed complaints against Pepsi-Cola for failing to honor the prizes they believed they had won. They claimed that Pepsi-Cola was guilty of gross negligence or fraud by changing the winning combination and refusing to pay their prizes. This controversy sparked numerous similar cases, all questioning the validity of the ‘349’ crowns and the company’s responsibility to the consumers who held them.

The central issue was whether the holders of the ‘349’ crowns were entitled to the prizes despite discrepancies in the security codes printed on the crowns. Pepsi-Cola argued that the correct security code was essential for validating a winning crown. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially ruled in favor of the crown holders, citing the pain and suffering caused by Pepsi-Cola’s actions. The RTC ordered Pepsi-Cola to pay moral and exemplary damages to each petitioner, but the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed this decision, emphasizing the importance of the security code in determining the winning crowns.

The appellate court determined that the confusion stemmed from Pepsi-Cola’s decision to extend the promotional period. There were three types of crowns for both the original and extension period of the promo. The number 349 bearing security code L-2560-FQ was used during the original promo period in non-winning crowns. For the extended promo period, the number 349 was inadvertently chosen as a winning number but the security code for these crowns were security codes for the extended period, not the L-2560-FQ used in the original promo period. The problem arose because the original 349 with L-2560-FQ was still in circulation during the extended promo period and were crowns picked out by the petitioners in the present case.

The Supreme Court, in denying the petition, anchored its decision on the principle of stare decisis et non quieta movere, which dictates that established points of law should be consistently followed in subsequent similar cases. The Court noted that it had previously ruled on similar cases involving the ‘349’ number fever promo, consistently emphasizing the indispensability of the correct security code for entitlement to the cash prize. In Pepsi Cola Products Philippines, Inc. v. Pagdanganan, G.R. No. 167866, the Supreme Court clearly stated the necessity of the correct security code:

We have consistently held (in previous 349 number fever promo cases) that the correct security code was an indispensable requirement to be entitled to the cash prize concerned.

The petitioners held ‘349’ crowns with security codes L-2560-FQ or L-3560-FQ, which were not the designated codes for the winning crowns during the extended promotional period. Thus, their claims were deemed invalid. The Court effectively reiterated the importance of adhering to the specific terms and conditions set forth by the company in its promotional offers. This decision highlights the binding nature of established legal precedents and their application to similar factual scenarios.

Building on this principle, the Supreme Court reinforced the significance of clear communication and defined rules in promotional contests. The promo mechanics were considered, which stipulated that the security codes were the only means to verify the winning crowns. Since the petitioners’ crowns did not match the winning security codes for the extended promo period, their claims were dismissed. This case exemplifies the judiciary’s role in upholding contractual obligations and ensuring fairness in promotional activities.

This ruling serves as a cautionary tale for consumers participating in promotional activities. It underscores the necessity of carefully reading and understanding the terms and conditions, especially concerning validation requirements such as security codes or other identifying features. The Supreme Court’s decision solidifies the principle that promotional offers are governed by the terms and conditions set by the offering party and that compliance with these terms is essential for entitlement to any promised benefit. It also underscores the application of stare decisis to ensure consistency and predictability in legal rulings.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether holders of ‘349’ Pepsi crowns with incorrect security codes were entitled to the advertised prize. The Supreme Court ruled they were not, upholding the importance of security codes in determining valid winning crowns.
What was the ‘Number Fever’ promo?	The ‘Number Fever’ promo was a 1992 promotional campaign by Pepsi-Cola where consumers could win prizes based on numbers printed on the underside of bottle caps. A controversy arose when some ‘349’ crowns were initially deemed winning but later invalidated due to incorrect security codes.
What is the principle of stare decisis?	Stare decisis et non quieta movere is a legal principle that means “to stand by things decided and not to disturb settled points.” It requires courts to follow precedents set in previous similar cases to ensure consistency and predictability in legal rulings.
Why were the petitioners’ claims dismissed?	The petitioners’ claims were dismissed because their ‘349’ crowns had security codes that did not match the winning codes designated for the extended promotional period. The Supreme Court emphasized that the correct security code was an indispensable requirement.
What did the Court of Appeals decide?	The Court of Appeals reversed the Regional Trial Court’s decision, ruling that Pepsi-Cola was not liable to pay the crown holders. It emphasized the importance of the alpha-numeric security code as the only means to verify the genuineness of a winning crown.
How did Pepsi-Cola explain the security code issue?	Pepsi-Cola explained that the confusion arose because it extended the promo period. The ‘349’ number was used on non-winning crowns during the original period, while a different security code was used for winning ‘349’ crowns during the extended period.
What were the security codes held by the petitioners?	The petitioners held ‘349’ crowns bearing either security code L-2560-FQ or L-3560-FQ. These were not the security codes for the ‘349’ crowns issued during the extended period of the promo.
What is the significance of the security code in promotional offers?	The security code serves as a validation tool to verify the authenticity of a winning entry in a promotional offer. It ensures that only legitimate claims are honored, preventing fraud and maintaining the integrity of the promotion.

In conclusion, the Cabigon vs. Pepsi-Cola case underscores the critical importance of adhering to the terms and conditions of promotional offers. The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the necessity for consumers to understand and comply with validation requirements, such as security codes, to be eligible for prizes. This case also illustrates the application of legal precedents, ensuring consistency and predictability in similar disputes.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Cabigon, et al. vs. Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 168030, December 19, 2007