G.R. No. L-4606 - MAY 1952 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-4606May 30, 1952 Ramon B. Felipe, Sr. vs. Jose N. Leuterio, et al. G.R. No. L-4683May 29, 1952 Olimpio Neñaria, et al. vs. Jose P. Veluz G.R. No. L-4373May 29, 1952 Enrique Bautista vs. Leoncia Reyes G.R. No. L-4229May 29, 1952 Dalmacio Falcasantos vs. How Suy Ching, etc. G.R. No. L-4813May 28, 1952 Association of Beverage Employees, et al. vs. Jose Figueras G.R. No. L-4533May 28, 1952 People of the Philippines vs. Lorenzo Morales G.R. No. L-4378-79May 28, 1952 Municipality of Gattaran vs. Doroteo Elizaga Municipality of Gattaran vs. Fruto Elizaga G.R. No. L-4346May 28, 1952 Joaquin V. Bass vs. Aminta T. de Robles G.R. No. L-4345May 28, 1952 Joaquin V. Bass vs. Jose C. Robles, et al. G.R. No. L-4344May 28, 1952 Joaquin V. Bass vs. Rebecca Levin G.R. No. L-4343May 28, 1952 Rebecca Levin vs. Joaquin V. Bass G.R. No. L-4342May 28, 1952 Joaquin V. Bass vs. Eugenio Mintu G.R. No. L-4341May 28, 1952 Joaquin V. Bass vs. Jose C. Robles, et al. G.R. No. L-4340May 28, 1952 Rebecca Levin vs. Joaquin V. Bass, et al. G.R. No. L-4316May 28, 1952 People of the Philippines vs. Higinio Macadaeg, et al. G.R. No. L-4231 and L-4232May 28, 1952 El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Arturo Alfaro, et al. G.R. No. L-4181May 28, 1952 El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Rodolfo Gerardo G.R. No. L-4091May 28, 1952 Mariano M. Paras, Sr. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-4061May 28, 1952 Central Oil Mftg. Co., Inc. vs. Philippine Oil Industry Workers Union, et al. G.R. No. L-3538May 28, 1952 Juan Luna Subdivision, Inc. vs. M. Sarmiento, et al. G.R. No. L-4869May 26, 1952 Esteban Mangaoang vs. Provincial Sheriff of La Union G.R. No. L-4783May 26, 1952 Julita Relucio vs. Ramon R. San Jose, etc. G.R. No. L-4043May 26, 1952 Cenon S. Cervantes vs. Auditor General G.R. No. L-3646May 26, 1952 People of the Philippines vs. Pablo S. Rivera G.R. No. L-4333May 23, 1952 Mary Hayden Arcache, et al. vs. Nicolas Lizares & Co., Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-4132May 23, 1952 Francisco M. Alonzo vs. Philippine National Bank G.R. No. L-3391May 23, 1952 People of the Philippines vs. Agustin Hernandez, et al. G.R. No. L-4234May 21, 1952 Abbot Laboratories vs. Celedonio Agrava G.R. No. L-4189May 21, 1952 El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Jacinto Santos, et al. G.R. No. L-3899May 21, 1952 Raymundo Transportation Co., Inc. vs. Victorino Cervo G.R. No. L-4420May 19, 1952 Cesar Reyes, et al. vs. Max Blouse, et al. G.R. No. L-4218-19May 19, 1952 People of the Philippines vs. Genaro Obenia, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Domingo Abris G.R. No. L-4156May 15, 1952 Florencia Vitug vs. Donata Montemayor, et al. G.R. No. L-4100 and L-4102May 15, 1952 Interprovincial Autobus Company, Inc. vs. Luis Clarete G.R. No. L-4893May 13, 1952 Pedro Gamboa vs. Jose Teodoro, Sr., et al. G.R. No. L-4133May 13, 1952 Agustina de Guzman vda. de Carrillo vs. Francisca Salak de Paz, et al. G.R. No. L-4615May 12, 1952 Juan Duldulao, et al. vs. Eusebio F. Ramos, et al. G.R. No. L-4002May 12, 1952 Ramon Pascual vs. Realty Investment, Inc. G.R. No. L-5047May 8, 1952 In re: Vicente Pang Kok Hua vs. La Republika de Filipinas G.R. No. L-4472May 8, 1952 Espiridion Rone, et al. vs. Victor Claro, et al. G.R. No. L-5514May 7, 1952 Pedro Calano vs. Pedro Cruz G.R. No. L-4741May 7, 1952 People of the Philippines vs. Eligio Camo, et al. G.R. No. L-5482May 5, 1952 Tranquilino Rovero vs. Rafael Amparo, et al. G.R. No. L-3318May 5, 1952 Cornelio Antiquera vs. Sotero Baluyot, et al. G.R. No. L-4367May 2, 1952 Generosa Torrefiel, et al. vs. Anastacio Toriano, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Ramon B. Felipe, Sr. vs. Jose N. Leuterio, et al. Olimpio Neñaria, et al. vs. Jose P. Veluz Enrique Bautista vs. Leoncia Reyes Dalmacio Falcasantos vs. How Suy Ching, etc. Association of Beverage Employees, et al. vs. Jose Figueras People of the Philippines vs. Lorenzo Morales Municipality of Gattaran vs. Doroteo Elizaga Municipality of Gattaran vs. Fruto Elizaga Joaquin V. Bass vs. Aminta T. de Robles Joaquin V. Bass vs. Jose C. Robles, et al. Joaquin V. Bass vs. Rebecca Levin Rebecca Levin vs. Joaquin V. Bass Joaquin V. Bass vs. Eugenio Mintu Joaquin V. Bass vs. Jose C. Robles, et al. Rebecca Levin vs. Joaquin V. Bass, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Higinio Macadaeg, et al. El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Arturo Alfaro, et al. El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Rodolfo Gerardo Mariano M. Paras, Sr. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Central Oil Mftg. Co., Inc. vs. Philippine Oil Industry Workers Union, et al. Juan Luna Subdivision, Inc. vs. M. Sarmiento, et al. Esteban Mangaoang vs. Provincial Sheriff of La Union Julita Relucio vs. Ramon R. San Jose, etc. Cenon S. Cervantes vs. Auditor General People of the Philippines vs. Pablo S. Rivera Mary Hayden Arcache, et al. vs. Nicolas Lizares & Co., Inc., et al. Francisco M. Alonzo vs. Philippine National Bank People of the Philippines vs. Agustin Hernandez, et al. Abbot Laboratories vs. Celedonio Agrava El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Jacinto Santos, et al. Raymundo Transportation Co., Inc. vs. Victorino Cervo Cesar Reyes, et al. vs. Max Blouse, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Genaro Obenia, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Domingo Abris Florencia Vitug vs. Donata Montemayor, et al. Interprovincial Autobus Company, Inc. vs. Luis Clarete Pedro Gamboa vs. Jose Teodoro, Sr., et al. Agustina de Guzman vda. de Carrillo vs. Francisca Salak de Paz, et al. Juan Duldulao, et al. vs. Eusebio F. Ramos, et al. Ramon Pascual vs. Realty Investment, Inc. In re: Vicente Pang Kok Hua vs. La Republika de Filipinas Espiridion Rone, et al. vs. Victor Claro, et al. Pedro Calano vs. Pedro Cruz People of the Philippines vs. Eligio Camo, et al. Tranquilino Rovero vs. Rafael Amparo, et al. Cornelio Antiquera vs. Sotero Baluyot, et al. Generosa Torrefiel, et al. vs. Anastacio Toriano, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-4606             May 30, 1952

RAMON B. FELIPE, SR., as Chairman, Board of Judges,petitioner,
vs.
HON. JOSE N. LEUTERIO, Judge, Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, EMMA IMPERIAL, represented by her guardian-ad-litem JUSTO V. IMPERIAL, and SOUTHERN LUZON COLLEGE,respondents.

Ramon Felipe, Jr., and L. B. Karingal for petitioner.
Ezequiel S. Grageda and Victoriano Yamson for respondents Judge Leuterio and Emma Imperial.
Padilla and San Juan for respondent Southern Luzon College.

BENGZON,J.:

Statement of the case. The issue in the litigation is whether the courts have the authority to reverse the award of the board of judges of an oratorical competition.

In an oratorical contest held in Naga, Camarines Sur, first honor was given by the board of five judges to Nestor Nosce, and second honor to Emma Imperial. Six days later, Emma asked the court of the first instance of that province to reversed that award, alleging that one of the judges had fallen to error in grading her performance. After a hearing, and over the objection of the other four judges of the contest, the court declared Emma Imperial winner of the first place. Hence this special civil action challenging the court's power to modify the board's verdict.

The facts. There is no dispute about the facts:

1. On March 12, 1950 a benefit inter-collegiate oratorical contest was held in Naga City. The contestants were eight, among them Nestor Nosce, Emma Imperial, and Luis General, Jr.

2. There were five judges of the competition, the petitioner Ramon B. Felipe, Sr. being the Chairman.

3. After the orators had delivered their respective pieces, and after the judges had expressed their votes, the Chairman publicly announced their decision awarding first price to Nestor Nosce, second price to Emma Imperial, third price to Menandro Benavides and fourth place to Luis General, Jr.

4. Four days afterwards, Emma Imperial addressed a letter to the Board of Judges protesting the verdict, and alleging that one of the Judges had committed a mathematical mistake, resulting in her second place only, instead of the first, which she therefore claimed.

5. Upon refusal of the Board to amend their award, she filed a complaint in the court of first instance.

6. At the contest the five judges were each furnished a blank form wherein he give the participants grades according to his estimate of their abilities, giving number 1 to the best, number 2 to the second best etc., down to number 8. Then the grades were added, and the contestant receiving the lowest number got first prize, the next second prize, etc.

7. The sums for the first four winners were: Nosce 10; Imperial 10; Benevides 17, General 17, the Board of judges having voted as follows:

8. It appearing that Nestor Nosce and Emma Imperial had tied for the first place, the Chairman, apparently with the consent of the board, broke the tie awarding first honors to Nosce and second honors to Imperial.

9. For the convenience of the judges the typewritten forms contained blank spaces in which, after the names of the rival orators and their respective orations, the judge could not jot down the grades he thought the contestants deserved according to "Originality", "Timeliness", "English", "Stage Personality", "Pronunciation and Enunciation" and "Voice". From such data he made up his vote.

10. It was discovered later that the form filed by Delfin Rodriguez, one of the Judges, gave Imperial and General the following ratings under the above headings; Imperial 19-15-15-18-14-14 Total 94-Place 4th General 19-15-15 or 14-19-14-14 Total 95-Place 3rd.

11. Imperial asserts that her total should be 95 instead of 94 and therefore should rank 3rd place in Rodriguez' vote. And if she got 3 from Rodriguez, her total vote should have been 9 instead of ten, with the result that she copped first place in the speaking joust.

12. Rodriguez testified that he made a mistake in adding up Imperial's ratings; that she should have been given a total of 95, or placed No. 3, the same as General; that he was not disposed to break the tie between her and General and insisted that he wanted to give rank 3 to Imperial and rank 3 also to General.

Discussion. Although it would seem anomalous for one judge to give the same rank to two contestants, we will concede for the moment that Delfin Rodriguez could have given 3 to Imperial to General.

However if deductions are to be made from his recorded vote (Exhibit 3) one may infer that after the contest and before submitting his vote he decided to give General an edge over Imperial. How? Under the caption "English" General was given by himself at first "14", later increased to "15". Evidently because after he had added the ratings of Imperial and (erroneously) reached the sum of 94, he added the ratings of General (which were the same as Imperial with 14 under "English") and (mistakenly) reached 94 also. So what did he also? He raised the 14 to 15 and thus gave general 95 to place him over Imperial's 94. (Mistakingly again, because with 15 General got 96 instead of 95).

But to us the important thing is Rodriguez'voteduring and immediately after the affair. His vote in Exhibit 3 definitely gave General place No. 3 and Imperial place No. 4. His calculations recorded on Exhibit 3 were not material. In fact the Chairman did not bother to fill out the blank spaces in his own form, and merely set down his conclusions giving one to Imperial, 2 to Benavides etc. without specifying the ratings for "Voice", "English", "Stage Personality" etc. In other words what counted was the vote.

Probably for the above reasons the board refused to "correct" the alleged error.

The situation then is this: Days after a contest has been conducted and the winners announced, one of the judges confesses he made a mistake, that the ratings he gave the second place winner should have been such as would entitle her to first place. The other judges refuse to alter their verdict. May the matter be brought to the court to obtain a new award, reversing the decision of the board of judges?

For more than thirty years oratorical tilts have been held periodically by schools and colleges in these islands. Inter-collegiate oratorical competitions are of more recent origin. Members of this court have taken part in them either as contestants in their school days¹, or as members of the board of judges afterwards. They know some (few) verdicts did not reflect the audience's preference and that errors have sometimes been ascribed to the award of the judges. Yet no party ever presumed to invoke judicial intervention; for it is unwritten law in such contests that the board's decision is final and unappealable.

Like the ancient tournaments of the Sword, these tournaments of the Word apply the highest tenets of sportmanship: finally of the referee's verdict. No alibis, no murmurs of protest. The participants are supposed to join the competition to contribute to its success by striving their utmost: the prizes are secondary.

No rights to the prizes may be asserted by the contestants, because their's was merely the privilege to compete for the prize, and that privilege did not ripen into a demandable right unless and until they were proclaimed winners of the competition by the appointed arbiters or referees or judges.

Incidentally, these school activities have been imported from the United States. We found in American jurisprudence no litigation questioning the determination of the board of judges.

Now, the fact that a particular action has had no precedent during a long period affords some reason for doubting the existence of the right sought to be enforced, especially where occasion for its assertion must have often arisen; and courts are cautious before allowing it, being loath to establish a new legal principle not in harmony with the generally accepted views thereon. (See C.J.S. Vol. 1, p. 1012).

We observe that in assuming jurisdiction over the matter, the respondent judge reasoned out that where there is a wrong there is a remedy and that courts of first instance are courts of general jurisdiction.

The flaw in his reasoning lies in the assumption that Imperial suffered somewrongat the hands of the board of judges. If at all, there waserroron the part of one judge, at most. Error and wrong do not mean the same thing. "Wrong" as used in the aforesaid legal principle is the deprivation or violation of a right. As stated before, a contestanthas no rightto the prize unless and until he or she is declared winner by the board of referees or judges.

Granting that Imperial suffered some loss or injury, yet in law there are instances of "damnum absque injuria". This is one of them. If fraud or malice had been proven, it would be a different proposition. But then her action should be directed against the individual judge or judges who fraudulently or maliciously injured her. Not against the other judges.

By the way what is here in stated must not be understood as applying to those activities which the government has chosen to regulate with the creation of the Games and Amusements Board in Executive Order No. 392, Series 1950.

Judgment. In view of all the foregoing, we are of the opinion and so declare, that the judiciary has no power to reverse the award of the board of judges of an oratorical contest. For that matter it would not interfere in literary contests, beauty contests and similar competitions.

Wherefore the order in controversy is hereby set aside. No costs.

Paras, C.J., Pablo, Tuason, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo and Ladrador, JJ.,concur.
Feria, J.,concurs in the result.

Footnotes