TOPICS:
- "Damnum absque injuria” or “damage without injury.”
- 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.
- Fraud or malice should be proven to overcome the legal principle of "damnum absque injuria."
Ramon Felipe, Sr. vs. Hon. Jose Leuterio, Emma Imperial, and Southern Luzon College
In 1950, an inter-collegiate oratorical contest was held in Naga City. 8 contestants participated, among them was the respondent, Emma Imperial. There were 5 judges, and Petitioner Ramon Felipe, Sr. was the Chair.
Imperial received the 2nd prize. Four days later, Imperial filed a protest alleging that one of the judges, Delfin Rodriguez, made a mistake. The Board of Judges refused to amend the results; hence, Imperial filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court (formerly Court of First Instance).
During the trial, it was proven that Rodriguez made an error in adding Imperial’s scores and that she should have been declared as the 1st placer. However, despite that mistake for Imperial’s scores, Rodriguez also mistakingly added up the score of another contestant, Luis General, Jr. (who was ranked 4th in the final tally), showing his decision to give General an edge over Imperial.
ISSUES:
Whether or not the Court can reverse the decision of the Board of Judges in an inter-collegiate oratorical contest.
RULING:
No. The judiciary has no power to reverse the award of the board of judges of an oratorical contest, absent fraud or malice (for that matter, the court would also not interfere in literary contests, beauty contests, and similar competitions).
Under the legal principle of “damnum absque injuria” or “damage without injury,” one may suffer loss or injury, but there is no violation of a legal right.
In this case, Imperial may have suffered some loss or injury, but she cannot assert a violation of her right. 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. A contestant has no right to the prize unless and until he or she is declared the winner by the board of judges. 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.
Moreover, it is an unwritten law in such contests that the board's decision is final and unappealable. However, it would have been settled differently had she proven fraud or malice, and that action should be directed against the individual judge who fraudulently or maliciously injured her. Not against the other judges.
Therefore, the final results of the oratorical contest, as officially announced, were upheld.
Full text here.