Scribd
Upload
783 views1 page

De Mesa Et Al vs. Pepsi Products Philippines

Pepsi Cola launched a promotional program but erroneously announced the wrong winning number. Several people filed a breach of contract case against Pepsi Cola for revoking their claims as winners. Their case was delayed pending the resolution of two similar cases in the Court of Appeals. When those two similar cases were dismissed, the lower court also dismissed the case against Pepsi Cola based on the legal principle of stare decisis, or judging a case based on previously decided cases with the same issues. The petitioners appealed but the court affirmed the lower court's dismissal based on stare decisis.

Uploaded by

Rey Edward' Concepcion'
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
783 views1 page

De Mesa Et Al vs. Pepsi Products Philippines

Pepsi Cola launched a promotional program but erroneously announced the wrong winning number. Several people filed a breach of contract case against Pepsi Cola for revoking their claims as winners. Their case was delayed pending the resolution of two similar cases in the Court of Appeals. When those two similar cases were dismissed, the lower court also dismissed the case against Pepsi Cola based on the legal principle of stare decisis, or judging a case based on previously decided cases with the same issues. The petitioners appealed but the court affirmed the lower court's dismissal based on stare decisis.

Uploaded by

Rey Edward' Concepcion'
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

De Mesa et al. vs. Pepsi Cola Products Philippines* Facts: Pepsi Cola launched a promotional program.

Due to security code problems, they erroneously announced 349 as winning number instead of the numbers submitted to the DTI, and deposited in the safety deposit box in a bank. Pepsi Cola revoked and dishonored the claim of the frustrated winners, which moved the petitioners to file breach of contract. Meanwhile, similar cases, Mendoza and Rodrigo, are pending with the Court of Appeals. The petitioners then filed a motion for leave in December 2000 to adopt the testimonial and documentary evidence in Mendoza and Rodrigo cases or archive the case until final resolution of the said two cases. RTC granted the motion in Jan. 2001. Unfortunately, Mendoza and Rodrigo cases were both dismissed. Consequently, De Mesa et al. case was dismissed by the RTC under the principle of stare decisis which is contemplated as well in Art. 8 of the New Civil Code. Issue: The applicability of stare decisis et non quieta movere. Ruling: The evidence presented in Mendoza and Rodrigo cases is as the current case. Whatever may be the judgment of the Court on the case, it shall form a part of the legal system of the Philippines, and more specially, it shall apply to similar cases as the current case. The petition for review is denied, and the judgment of RTC is affirmed.

You might also like