This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2006-10-16 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In 2001, in the case of Mendoza v. Pepsi-Cola Products Phils., Inc. and Pepsico, Inc.,[23] the RTC dismissed the complaint for specific performance and damages against herein petitioners PCPPI and PEPSICO. On appeal[24] with the Court of Appeals, the latter dismissed the appeal for lack of merit and affirmed the dismissal of the complaint. It rationalized that: The mechanics for the "Number Fever" promo, both in the original period and for the extension period, was duly approved by the DTI. Television, radio and print advertisements for the promo passed through and were by the DTI. Posters explaining the promo mechanics were posted all over the country and warning ads in newspapers highlighted the importance of the security code. Plaintiff-appellant admitted to have read and understood the mechanics of the promo. His different interpretation of the security code's function should not mean that PEPSI was grossly negligent. The mechanics were clear. A winning number had its own unique, matching security code which must be authenticated by PEPSI against its official list. The importance of a matching security code had been adequately emphasized in the Warning Ads (citation omitted) and in the new campaign posters (citation omitted) during the extension period both of which were duly approved by DTI. | |||||
|
2005-08-19 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In the Mendoza case, the RTC dismissed the complaint filed against herein respondents for specific performance and damages in connection with the Number Fever fiasco.[9] Mendoza appealed to the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. CV No. 53860, which was dismissed for lack of merit.[10] Unfazed, Mendoza filed with this Court a petition for review, which was denied for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error.[11] | |||||