SUPREME COURT

Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-4606 May 30, 1952
RAMON B. FELIPE, SR., a C!a"#$a%, Boa#& o' ()&*+, petitioner,
vs.
,ON. (OSE N. LEUTERIO, ()&*+, Co)#- o' F"#- I%-a%.+ o' Ca$a#"%+ S)#, EMMA
IMPERIAL, #+/#++%-+& 0y !+# *)a#&"a%-a&-1"-+$ (USTO 2. IMPERIAL, a%& SOUT,ERN
LU3ON COLLEGE,respondents.
Ramon Felipe, Jr., and L. B. Karingal for petitioner.
Ezequiel S. Grageda and Victoriano Yamon for repondent Judge Leuterio and Emma
!mperial.
"adilla and San Juan for repondent Sout#ern Luzon $ollege.
BENG3ON, J.4
Statement of the case. The issue in the litigation is whether the courts have the authority to
reverse the award of the oard of !udges of an oratorical competition.
"n an oratorical contest held in Naga, Camarines Sur, first honor was given y the oard of
five !udges to Nestor Nosce, and second honor to Emma "mperial. Si# days later, Emma
as$ed the court of the first instance of that province to reversed that award, alleging that one
of the !udges had fallen to error in grading her performance. After a hearing, and over the
o!ection of the other four !udges of the contest, the court declared Emma "mperial winner of
the first place. %ence this special civil action challenging the court&s power to modify the
oard&s verdict.
%#e fact. There is no dispute aout the facts'
(. )n March (*, (+,- a enefit inter.collegiate oratorical contest was held in Naga City. The
contestants were eight, among them Nestor Nosce, Emma "mperial, and /uis 0eneral, 1r.
*. There were five !udges of the competition, the petitioner 2amon B. 3elipe, Sr. eing the
Chairman.
4. After the orators had delivered their respective pieces, and after the !udges had e#pressed
their votes, the Chairman pulicly announced their decision awarding first price to Nestor
Nosce, second price to Emma "mperial, third price to Menandro Benavides and fourth place
to /uis 0eneral, 1r.
5. 3our days afterwards, Emma "mperial addressed a letter to the Board of 1udges protesting
the verdict, and alleging that one of the 1udges had committed a mathematical mista$e,
resulting in her second place only, instead of the first, which she therefore claimed.
,. 6pon refusal of the Board to amend their award, she filed a complaint in the court of first
instance.
7. At the contest the five !udges were each furnished a lan$ form wherein he give the
participants grades according to his estimate of their ailities, giving numer ( to the est,
numer * to the second est etc., down to numer 8. Then the grades were added, and the
contestant receiving the lowest numer got first pri9e, the ne#t second pri9e, etc.
:. The sums for the first four winners were' Nosce (-; "mperial (-; Benevides (:, 0eneral
(:, the Board of !udges having voted as follows'
1udge Nosce "mperia
l
Buenavides 0eneral
3elipe Sr. ......... 4 ( * 5
)ias .............. ( * 5 4
2odrigue9 .......... ( 5 , 4
<rado .............. 4 * ( 4
Moll ............... * ( , 5
(- (- (: (:
8. "t appearing that Nestor Nosce and Emma "mperial had tied for the first place, the
Chairman, apparently with the consent of the oard, ro$e the tie awarding first honors to
Nosce and second honors to "mperial.
+. 3or the convenience of the !udges the typewritten forms contained lan$ spaces in which,
after the names of the rival orators and their respective orations, the !udge could not !ot down
the grades he thought the contestants deserved according to =)riginality=, =Timeliness=,
=English=, =Stage <ersonality=, =<ronunciation and Enunciation= and =>oice=. 3rom such data
he made up his vote.
(-. "t was discovered later that the form filed y ?elfin 2odrigue9, one of the 1udges, gave
"mperial and 0eneral the following ratings under the aove headings; "mperial (+.(,.(,.(8.
(5.(5 Total +5.<lace 5th 0eneral (+.(,.(, or (5.(+.(5.(5 Total +,.<lace 4rd.
((. "mperial asserts that her total should e +, instead of +5 and therefore should ran$ 4rd
place in 2odrigue9& vote. And if she got 4 from 2odrigue9, her total vote should have een +
instead of ten, with the result that she copped first place in the spea$ing !oust.
(*. 2odrigue9 testified that he made a mista$e in adding up "mperial&s ratings; that she
should have een given a total of +,, or placed No. 4, the same as 0eneral; that he was not
disposed to rea$ the tie etween her and 0eneral and insisted that he wanted to give ran$
4 to "mperial and ran$ 4 also to 0eneral.
&icuion. Although it would seem anomalous for one !udge to give the same ran$ to two
contestants, we will concede for the moment that ?elfin 2odrigue9 could have given 4 to
"mperial to 0eneral.
%owever if deductions are to e made from his recorded vote @E#hiit 4A one may infer that
after the contest and efore sumitting his vote he decided to give 0eneral an edge over
"mperial. %owB 6nder the caption =English= 0eneral was given y himself at first =(5=, later
increased to =(,=. Evidently ecause after he had added the ratings of "mperial and
@erroneouslyA reached the sum of +5, he added the ratings of 0eneral @which were the same
as "mperial with (5 under =English=A and @mista$enlyA reached +5 also. So what did he alsoB
%e raised the (5 to (, and thus gave general +, to place him over "mperial&s +5. @Mista$ingly
again, ecause with (, 0eneral got +7 instead of +,A.
But to us the important thing is 2odrigue9& 'ote during and immediately after the affair. %is
vote in E#hiit 4 definitely gave 0eneral place No. 4 and "mperial place No. 5. %is
calculations recorded on E#hiit 4 were not material. "n fact the Chairman did not other to
fill out the lan$ spaces in his own form, and merely set down his conclusions giving one to
"mperial, * to Benavides etc. without specifying the ratings for =>oice=, =English=, =Stage
<ersonality= etc. "n other words what counted was the vote.
<roaly for the aove reasons the oard refused to =correct= the alleged error.
The situation then is this' ?ays after a contest has een conducted and the winners
announced, one of the !udges confesses he made a mista$e, that the ratings he gave the
second place winner should have een such as would entitle her to first place. The other
!udges refuse to alter their verdict. May the matter e rought to the court to otain a new
award, reversing the decision of the oard of !udgesB
3or more than thirty years oratorical tilts have een held periodically y schools and colleges
in these islands. "nter.collegiate oratorical competitions are of more recent origin. Memers
of this court have ta$en part in them either as contestants in their school days
(
, or as
memers of the oard of !udges afterwards. They $now some @fewA verdicts did not reflect
the audience&s preference and that errors have sometimes een ascried to the award of the
!udges. Cet no party ever presumed to invo$e !udicial intervention; for it is unwritten law in
such contests that the oard&s decision is final and unappealale.
/i$e the ancient tournaments of the Sword, these tournaments of the Dord apply the highest
tenets of sportmanship' finally of the referee&s verdict. No aliis, no murmurs of protest. The
participants are supposed to !oin the competition to contriute to its success y striving their
utmost' the pri9es are secondary.
No rights to the pri9es may e asserted y the contestants, ecause their&s was merely the
privilege to compete for the pri9e, and that privilege did not ripen into a demandale right
unless and until they were proclaimed winners of the competition y the appointed ariters or
referees or !udges.
"ncidentally, these school activities have een imported from the 6nited States. De found in
American !urisprudence no litigation Euestioning the determination of the oard of !udges.
Now, the fact that a particular action has had no precedent during a long period affords some
reason for douting the e#istence of the right sought to e enforced, especially where
occasion for its assertion must have often arisen; and courts are cautious efore allowing it,
eing loath to estalish a new legal principle not in harmony with the generally accepted
views thereon. @See C.1.S. >ol. (, p. (-(*A.
De oserve that in assuming !urisdiction over the matter, the respondent !udge reasoned out
that where there is a wrong there is a remedy and that courts of first instance are courts of
general !urisdiction.
The flaw in his reasoning lies in the assumption that "mperial suffered some (rong at the
hands of the oard of !udges. "f at all, there was error on the part of one !udge, at most. Error
and wrong do not mean the same thing. =Drong= as used in the aforesaid legal principle is
the deprivation or violation of a right. As stated efore, a contestant #a no rig#t to the pri9e
unless and until he or she is declared winner y the oard of referees or !udges.
0ranting that "mperial suffered some loss or in!ury, yet in law there are instances of
=damnum asEue in!uria=. This is one of them. "f fraud or malice had een proven, it would
e a different proposition. But then her action should e directed against the individual !udge
or !udges who fraudulently or maliciously in!ured her. Not against the other !udges.
By the way what is here in stated must not e understood as applying to those activities
which the government has chosen to regulate with the creation of the 0ames and
Amusements Board in E#ecutive )rder No. 4+*, Series (+,-.
Judgment. "n view of all the foregoing, we are of the opinion and so declare, that the !udiciary
has no power to reverse the award of the oard of !udges of an oratorical contest. 3or that
matter it would not interfere in literary contests, eauty contests and similar competitions.
Dherefore the order in controversy is herey set aside. No costs.
"ara, $.J., "a)lo, %uaon, *ontema+or, Bautita ,ngelo and Ladrador, JJ., concur.
Feria, J., concurs in the result.
Foo-%o-+
(
"n the College of /aw 6.<. annual oratorical contest, first pri9e was awarded to
1ustice Montemayor in (+(5 and to 1ustice /aradorin (+(7.