G.R. No. 152927 ; January 14, 2004
PEPSI COLA PRODUCTS (PHILS), petitioner, vs. RUSTICO P. PATAN, JR., GREGORIO C. APANTO, JR., GENELYN PONGCOL, and DENNIS PESTANO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Pepsi Cola launched the “Number Fever” promotional campaign in 1991, with prior approval and supervision from the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). Winning crowns were pre-selected by computer, and a list was secured in a bank safety deposit box. On May 25, 1992, Pepsi announced “349” as the winning number for the following day. Subsequently, numerous individuals attempted to redeem crowns bearing “349” with specific security codes for large cash prizes. A joint verification by Pepsi and the DTI confirmed these specific “349” crowns were not on the official winning list. To appease claimants and prevent violence against its personnel and assets, Pepsi offered a goodwill payment of P500 for each non-winning “349” crown presented by June 12, 1992, which was availed of by 490,116 individuals.
Respondents, holders of non-winning “349” crowns, rejected the P500 offer. They filed separate complaints for specific performance and damages. The Regional Trial Court dismissed all complaints for lack of cause of action. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s findings that respondents did not possess winning crowns and that Pepsi was not negligent. However, the CA modified the decision by awarding each respondent P500 “in the interest of justice and equity.” Pepsi filed this petition, assailing the award.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in awarding P500 to each respondent solely on the basis of equity.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals committed reversible error. The award must be deleted. For respondents Apanto, Jr., Pongcol, and Pestano, the CA had no jurisdiction to grant them affirmative relief. The records show the CA had previously dismissed the appeals of Apanto, Jr. and Pongcol due to their failure to pay the requisite docket fees, and Pestano failed to file his appellant’s brief. These failures constituted an abandonment of their appeals. Consequently, the judgment of the trial court dismissing their complaints became final as to them. A court cannot modify a judgment in favor of a party who did not perfect an appeal.
For respondent Patan, Jr., the award based on equity is also unwarranted. The Court emphasized that justice is administered according to law, and equity follows the law. There was no finding of any legal wrong, negligence, or enforceable duty on Pepsi’s part. Patan, Jr. had expressly rejected Pepsi’s voluntary P500 goodwill offer when it was available and made no counter-offer for settlement during pre-trial. A moral or equitable consideration, absent a violation of law or legal duty, cannot justify a judicial award. Compelling Pepsi to pay after the offer was rejected would be unjust.