Errors in literary contests, beauty contests, and similar competitions; Damnum Absque Injuria

 TOPICS:

1. "Damnum absque injuria” or “damage without injury.” 
2. 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. 
3. 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 

FACTS:

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. 

Mother Goose Special School System, Inc. vs. Spouses Samuel Palaganas and Villa Palaganas

TOPICS: Distinction between culpa contractual and culpa aquiliana; Contractual obligation between the school and the student; Negligence 

FACTS

In 2007, Noel, a grade school student of Mother Goose Special School System, Inc., lost his mechanical pencil. He found out that it was Rhys who found his pencil and brought it home. After a few days, Noel asked Rhys to return his pencil, but Rhys failed to bring it, and instead told Noel that he would return it next time. After a while, Mark, who was seated next to Rhys, punched Rhys six times, while Noel also punched Rhys five times.

At the time of the incident, their teacher, Mr. Gerald Gomez, was inside the comfort room. Thus, Rhys reported it to their HEKASI teacher, Mr. Gallardo, who did nothing about the matter. Rhys’s classmates then reported it to their class adviser, who called Noel and Mark. Both pupils admitted to punching Rhys. 

Rhys’s parents, Spouses Palaganas, went to the school to complain. His father, Samuel, requested for an investigation. Unfortunately, the investigation report absolved Mark from bullying, despite his prior admission to their class adviser. After a reinvestigation, the bullying incident was only downplayed by the school as teasing or rough play. Subsequently, the Spouses Palaganas filed a Complaint for Damages against Noel’s father, Mark’s father, the school, and a few teachers. 

The RTC found the School and the teacher-in-charge, Mr. Gomez, solidarily liable to the Spouses Palaganas because the incident happened during class hours. The School and Mr. Gomez were exercising parental authority and had the obligation to protect Rhys from harm. The RTC also mentioned that the school was negligent as it failed to take necessary steps to prevent the punching. 

The CA affirmed the RTC’s decision, but ruled that Mr. Gomez was not negligent as he was at the comfort room at the time of the incident. The CA also classified the incident as a form of bullying under the Anti-Bullying Act of 2013. 

ISSUE

Whether or not the School may be held liable

RULING

Yes, Mother Goose Special School System, Inc. is liable for breach of its contractual obligation with its student, Rhys. 

Under the rule on contracts, an educational institution has a contractual obligation to provide and maintain a safe learning environment for its students. 

In this case, Rhys, who was enrolled in Mother Goose Special School System, Inc., became a victim of a bullying incident within the school’s premises. Despite the school’s obligation to provide and maintain a safe learning environment for Rhys, its teacher ignored the student’s complaints. The School failed to inform Rhys’s parents about the incident, as they only became aware from the offender’s mother. The School also did not have a protocol for handling the situation, and the investigation only came upon the request of Rhys’s father. Finally, the investigation report was replete with inaccurate information, such as when no disciplinary action was taken against Mark despite his admission that he punched Rhys. 

Therefore, the School is liable for breach of its contractual obligations to Rhys when it failed to provide and maintain a safe learning environment for him. 

DISCUSSION

Distinction between culpa contractual from culpa aquiliana

Culpa Contractual

• Definition: It is the fault or negligence in the performance of a pre-existing obligation. 
• Article: Articles 1170 to 1174 of the Civil Code
• Negligence: Negligence is merely incidental to the performance of a pre-existing contractual obligation 
• Defense: The school should have exercised the required diligence to avoid the happening of incident and to address the incident after it happened. The defense of being a good of a family is not a defense. 
• Presumption: There is a presumption of negligence so long as it can be proved that there was a breach of the contract. 
• Burden: The burden is on the defendant to prove that there was no negligence in carrying out the terms of the contract.

Culpa Aquiliana 

• Definition: It is the wrongful or negligent act or omission which creates a vinculum juris and gives rise to an obligation between two persons not formally bound by any other obligation (there is no pre-existing obligation)
• Article: Article 2176 of the Civil Code
• Negligence: Negligence is direct, substantive, and independent
• Defense: The defense of a “good father of a family” in the selection and supervision of employees is a complete defense available to employers
• Presumption: There is no presumption of negligence. 
• Burden: It is the burden of the injured party to prove the negligence of the defendant

Application of culpa contractual:

1. There is a pre-existing obligation – When the academic institution accepts students for enrollment, there is an established contract between them, resulting in bilateral obligations. The school undertakes to provide the student with an education, while the student covenants to abide by the school’s academic requirements and observe its rules and regulations. In particular, the “built-in” obligations of the school are:
1. To provide the students with a conducive atmosphere for learning
2. To ensure that there are no constant threats to the life and limbs of the students
3. To maintain peace and order within the campus. However, this extends to out-of-school premises where the school conducts official activities. Ex.: Cabiao Community Clinic of St. Luke’s College of Medicine in Nueva Ecija - a fire broke out, which resulted in the death of a female medical student, making the school liable.  
2. Negligence – It is the omission of that diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the persons, of the time, and of the place. In the absence of a stipulated standard of diligence, the diligence of a good father of a family must be observed. It becomes gross negligence when there is a want of even slight care and diligence. Ex: In this case, the School failed to exercise the required diligence to avoid the happening of bullying and to address the incident after it happened. The School has not conducted training or awareness seminars or training to enable its teachers-personnel to cope with the situation. The School lacked the capacity to detect, prevent, and address the bullying incident.  
3. Presumption and Burden - A mere proof of the existence of the contract and the failure of its compliance justifies, prima facie, a corresponding right of relief. Ex.: Far Eastern University failed to discharge the burden of proving that they exercised due diligence in providing a safe learning environment when they failed to prove that the guards assigned to the campus met the requirements (qualifications set) in the Security Services Agreement.

Award for Damages

1. Moral damages may be awarded for breach of contract where the Defendant acted in bad faith. 
2. Exemplary damages may be awarded in contracts where the Defendant acted in a wanton, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner, by way of example or correction for the public good. 
3. Attorney’s fees may be awarded when exemplary damages are awarded.
   

Full text here as originally published by the Philippine Supreme Court Public Information Office.