GR 168030; (December, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 168030 ; December 19, 2007
AURELIO CABIGON, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. PEPSI-COLA PRODUCTS PHILIPPINES, INC., Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioners, holders of non-winning bottle crowns bearing the number 349 from respondent Pepsi-Cola’s 1992 “Number Fever” promotion, filed separate complaints for sum of money, specific performance, and damages in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City. They alleged that respondent was guilty of gross negligence or fraud for changing the winning combination and refusing to pay the prizes corresponding to the number 349, thereby causing them injury, mental anguish, and humiliation.
The RTC ruled in favor of petitioners, awarding each of them moral and exemplary damages. Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which reversed the RTC decision and dismissed the complaints. The CA held that petitioners failed to establish a cause of action, as their crowns contained non-winning security codes, and that their claims were essentially for breach of contract premised on fraud or negligence, which they did not sufficiently prove.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the RTC decision and dismissing petitioners’ complaints for damages against respondent.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA decision. The Court held that petitioners’ action was one for breach of contract, specifically the contract of adhesion constituted by the promotion’s mechanics. To recover damages for breach of contract due to fraud or bad faith under Article 1170 of the Civil Code, the obligee must prove the fraud or negligence of the obligor.
The Court found that petitioners failed to discharge this burden of proof. They did not present clear evidence that respondent acted with fraud, gross negligence, or bad faith in the conduct of the promotion. The mere fact that their crowns bore the number 349 was insufficient, as the winning combination required both the winning number and the correct security code. Their crowns lacked the winning security codes. The Court reiterated its consistent rulings in numerous related “Number Fever” cases that holders of non-winning crowns are not entitled to prizes or damages absent proof of fraud or negligence by the company. The promotion mechanics created a conditional obligation to pay only upon presentation of a crown with the complete winning combination, a condition which petitioners did not fulfill.