You are on page 1of 3

2/15/2017 G.R.No.

L4606

TodayisWednesday,February15,2017

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT ClipHighli
Manila

ENBANC

G.R.No.L4606May30,1952

RAMONB.FELIPE,SR.,asChairman,BoardofJudges,petitioner,
vs.
HON.JOSEN.LEUTERIO,Judge,CourtofFirstInstanceofCamarinesSur,EMMAIMPERIAL,represented
byherguardianadlitemJUSTOV.IMPERIAL,andSOUTHERNLUZONCOLLEGE,respondents.

RamonFelipe,Jr.,andL.B.Karingalforpetitioner.
EzequielS.GragedaandVictorianoYamsonforrespondentsJudgeLeuterioandEmmaImperial.
PadillaandSanJuanforrespondentSouthernLuzonCollege.

BENGZON,J.:

Statementofthecase.Theissueinthelitigationiswhetherthecourtshavetheauthoritytoreversetheawardof
theboardofjudgesofanoratoricalcompetition.

InanoratoricalcontestheldinNaga,CamarinesSur,firsthonorwasgivenbytheboardoffivejudgestoNestor
Nosce, and second honor to Emma Imperial. Six days later, Emma asked the court of the first instance of that
provincetoreversedthataward,allegingthatoneofthejudgeshadfallentoerroringradingherperformance.
Afterahearing,andovertheobjectionoftheotherfourjudgesofthecontest,thecourtdeclaredEmmaImperial
winnerofthefirstplace.Hencethisspecialcivilactionchallengingthecourt'spowertomodifytheboard'sverdict.

Thefacts.Thereisnodisputeaboutthefacts:

1. On March 12, 1950 a benefit intercollegiate oratorical contest was held in Naga City. The contestants were
eight,amongthemNestorNosce,EmmaImperial,andLuisGeneral,Jr.

2.Therewerefivejudgesofthecompetition,thepetitionerRamonB.Felipe,Sr.beingtheChairman.

3. After the orators had delivered their respective pieces, and after the judges had expressed their votes, the
ChairmanpubliclyannouncedtheirdecisionawardingfirstpricetoNestorNosce,secondpricetoEmmaImperial,
thirdpricetoMenandroBenavidesandfourthplacetoLuisGeneral,Jr.

4. Four days afterwards, Emma Imperial addressed a letter to the Board of Judges protesting the verdict, and
allegingthatoneoftheJudgeshadcommittedamathematicalmistake,resultinginhersecondplaceonly,instead
ofthefirst,whichshethereforeclaimed.

5.UponrefusaloftheBoardtoamendtheiraward,shefiledacomplaintinthecourtoffirstinstance.

6. At the contest the five judges were each furnished a blank form wherein he give the participants grades
accordingtohisestimateoftheirabilities,givingnumber1tothebest,number2tothesecondbestetc.,downto
number8.Thenthegradeswereadded,andthecontestantreceivingthelowestnumbergotfirstprize,thenext
secondprize,etc.

7.Thesumsforthefirstfourwinnerswere:Nosce10Imperial10Benevides17,General17,theBoardofjudges
havingvotedasfollows:

Judge Nosce Imperial Buenavides General


FelipeSr.......... 3 1 2 4
Obias.............. 1 2 4 3
Rodriguez 1 4 5 3
..........
Prado.............. 3 2 1 3
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1952/may1952/gr_l4606_1952.html 1/3
2/15/2017 G.R.No.L4606
Prado.............. 3 2 1 3

Moll............... 2 1 5 4
10 10 17 17

8.ItappearingthatNestorNosceandEmmaImperialhadtiedforthefirstplace,theChairman,apparentlywith
theconsentoftheboard,brokethetieawardingfirsthonorstoNosceandsecondhonorstoImperial.

9.Fortheconvenienceofthejudgesthetypewrittenformscontainedblankspacesinwhich,afterthenamesof
therivaloratorsandtheirrespectiveorations,thejudgecouldnotjotdownthegradeshethoughtthecontestants
deservedaccordingto"Originality","Timeliness","English","StagePersonality","PronunciationandEnunciation" ClipHighli
and"Voice".Fromsuchdatahemadeuphisvote.

10.ItwasdiscoveredlaterthattheformfiledbyDelfinRodriguez,oneoftheJudges,gaveImperialandGeneral
thefollowingratingsundertheaboveheadingsImperial191515181414Total94Place4thGeneral191515
or14191414Total95Place3rd.

11.Imperialassertsthathertotalshouldbe95insteadof94andthereforeshouldrank3rdplaceinRodriguez'
vote.Andifshegot3fromRodriguez,hertotalvoteshouldhavebeen9insteadoften,withtheresultthatshe
coppedfirstplaceinthespeakingjoust.

12.RodrigueztestifiedthathemadeamistakeinaddingupImperial'sratingsthatsheshouldhavebeengivena
total of 95, or placed No. 3, the same as General that he was not disposed to break the tie between her and
Generalandinsistedthathewantedtogiverank3toImperialandrank3alsotoGeneral.

Discussion. Although it would seem anomalous for one judge to give the same rank to two contestants, we will
concedeforthemomentthatDelfinRodriguezcouldhavegiven3toImperialtoGeneral.

Howeverifdeductionsaretobemadefromhisrecordedvote(Exhibit3)onemayinferthatafterthecontestand
beforesubmittinghisvotehedecidedtogiveGeneralanedgeoverImperial.How?Underthecaption"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
sameasImperialwith14under"English")and(mistakenly)reached94also.Sowhatdidhealso?Heraisedthe
14to15andthusgavegeneral95toplacehimoverImperial's94.(Mistakinglyagain,becausewith15General
got96insteadof95).

But to us the important thing is Rodriguez' vote during 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.InfacttheChairmandidnotbothertofillouttheblankspacesinhisownform,andmerelysetdownhis
conclusionsgivingonetoImperial,2toBenavidesetc.withoutspecifyingtheratingsfor"Voice","English","Stage
Personality"etc.Inotherwordswhatcountedwasthevote.

Probablyfortheabovereasonstheboardrefusedto"correct"theallegederror.

Thesituationthenisthis:Daysafteracontesthasbeenconductedandthewinnersannounced,oneofthejudges
confesseshemadeamistake,thattheratingshegavethesecondplacewinnershouldhavebeensuchaswould
entitlehertofirstplace.Theotherjudgesrefusetoaltertheirverdict.Maythematterbebroughttothecourtto
obtainanewaward,reversingthedecisionoftheboardofjudges?

For more than thirty years oratorical tilts have been held periodically by schools and colleges in these islands.
Intercollegiateoratoricalcompetitionsareofmorerecentorigin.Membersofthiscourthavetakenpartinthem
eitherascontestantsintheirschooldays1,orasmembersoftheboardofjudgesafterwards.Theyknowsome
(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
conteststhattheboard'sdecisionisfinalandunappealable.

Like the ancient tournaments of the Sword, these tournaments of the Word apply the highest tenets of
sportmanship:finallyofthereferee'sverdict.Noalibis,nomurmursofprotest.Theparticipantsaresupposedto
jointhecompetitiontocontributetoitssuccessbystrivingtheirutmost:theprizesaresecondary.

Norightstotheprizesmaybeassertedbythecontestants,becausetheir'swasmerelytheprivilegetocompete
for the prize, and that privilege did not ripen into a demandable right unless and until they were proclaimed
winnersofthecompetitionbytheappointedarbitersorrefereesorjudges.

Incidentally, these school activities have been imported from the United States. We found in American
jurisprudencenolitigationquestioningthedeterminationoftheboardofjudges.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1952/may1952/gr_l4606_1952.html 2/3
2/15/2017 G.R.No.L4606

Now,thefactthataparticularactionhashadnoprecedentduringalongperiodaffordssomereasonfordoubting
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
withthegenerallyacceptedviewsthereon.(SeeC.J.S.Vol.1,p.1012).

Weobservethatinassumingjurisdictionoverthematter,therespondentjudgereasonedoutthatwherethereisa
wrongthereisaremedyandthatcourtsoffirstinstancearecourtsofgeneraljurisdiction.

TheflawinhisreasoningliesintheassumptionthatImperialsufferedsomewrongatthehandsoftheboardof
judges.Ifatall,therewaserroronthepartofonejudge,atmost.Errorandwrongdonotmeanthesamething.
"Wrong" as used in the aforesaid legal principle is the deprivation or violation of a right. As stated before, a ClipHighli
contestanthas no right to 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".
Thisisoneofthem.Iffraudormalicehadbeenproven,itwouldbeadifferentproposition.Butthenheraction
shouldbedirectedagainsttheindividualjudgeorjudgeswhofraudulentlyormaliciouslyinjuredher.Notagainst
theotherjudges.

Bythewaywhatishereinstatedmustnotbeunderstoodasapplyingtothoseactivitieswhichthegovernment
has chosen to regulate with the creation of the Games and Amusements Board in Executive Order No. 392,
Series1950.

Judgment.Inviewofalltheforegoing,weareoftheopinionandsodeclare,thatthejudiciaryhasnopowerto
reversetheawardoftheboardofjudgesofanoratoricalcontest.Forthatmatteritwouldnotinterfereinliterary
contests,beautycontestsandsimilarcompetitions.

Whereforetheorderincontroversyisherebysetaside.Nocosts.

Paras,C.J.,Pablo,Tuason,Montemayor,BautistaAngeloandLadrador,JJ.,concur.
Feria,J.,concursintheresult.

Footnotes
1 In the College of Law U.P. annual oratorical contest, first prize was awarded to Justice Montemayor in
1914andtoJusticeLabradorin1916.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1952/may1952/gr_l4606_1952.html 3/3

You might also like