PDA

View Full Version : Sports Competition and the Court of Law



oca
08-26-2007, 08:41 PM
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1995/oct1995/gr_108115_1995.html

PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE - FULL TEXT
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
G.R. No. 108115 October 27, 1995
PHILIPPINE SOAP BOX DERBY, INC. vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.


Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

FIRST DIVISION



G.R. No. 108115 October 27, 1995

PHILIPPINE SOAP BOX DERBY, INC., petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and JOSE ELSTON YABUT, represented by his father, GEMINIANO E. YABUT, JR., and ROADWAY EXPRESS, INC., respondents.



KAPUNAN, J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court of the Amended Decision dated December 9, 1992 of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CV No. 22347 reversing the Regional Trial Court's decision sentencing petitioner Philippine Soap Box Derby, Inc. to pay the sums of P25,000.00 as moral damages, P25,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P15,000.00 as attorney's fees and costs to the private respondents. The facts are undisputed:

On July 3, 1983, the defendant Philippine Soap Box Derby, Inc., a duly organized non-stock corporation, held a soap box derby on the grounds of the Folk Arts Theater. Jose Elston Yabut, a ten-year old student and son of Geminiano Yabut, Jr., joined the contest as one of the racers, sponsored by the Roadway Express, Inc. (Roadway for brevity). The young Yabut won first place in one of the morning races and was (sic) qualified to run for the second race. After lunch and preparatory for the second race, Yabut was weighed while seated on his race car and was found overweight by the derby officials. The derby rules provide that the maximum combined weight of car and driver should not exceed 206 pounds. The derby officials removed a half-pound weight at the back of the soap box car, which was handed to the boy and the boy gave it to his father. The father kept the half-pound weight. The boy lost in the second race. Thereafter, the father returned the weight to the boy in order that it could be screwed back to where it was originally attached. He was to participate again in the third race in the afternoon of the same day so his father instructed him to put back the half-pound weight at the back of the derby car. The boy did not screw the weight to its proper place and instead, he placed it inside his back pocket. With the half-pound weight in his back pocket, he was weighed for the third time with the box car. While he was about to climb the ramp to ride the soap box car, a derby official tapped his back pocket and discovered the half-pound weight inside the pocket. The official removed the lead weight from the boy's pocket. When confronted, the boy admitted that he did not screw the lead weight. The boy was not allowed to participate in the third race inspite of the efforts of the father to talk with the derby officials. 1

As a result of his son's disqualification private respondent Geminiano Yabut, Jr. (together with Roadway Express, Inc.) filed a complaint for actual, moral and exemplary damages with the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City alleging that the arbitrary disqualification of his son "became a nightmare," 2 resulting in his son's embarrassment and humiliation, "not only to relatives, classmates and friends but (also) to the public in general," 3 resulting in "mental anguish, serious anxiety, social humiliation and sleepless nights." 4 Additionally, as "the father of plaintiff and a representative of Roadway Enterprises," who paid the P5,000.00 fee both to sponsor his son and to advertise his business as a common carrier, and who consequently demanded � but was refused � an investigation of the incident, he was entitled to moral and compensatory damages because the resulting unpleasant publicity of the incident affected the goodwill of his company before the public in general. 5 Exemplary damages and attorney's fees were likewise sought by private respondents from the trial
court. 6

On January 23, 1989 the trial court rendered its decision dismissing the complaint for lack of merit, and ordering petitioner to pay the sum of P15,000.00 as attorney's fees and costs. It found that "the discovery of the unbolted half pound lead weight in the body of plaintiff Jose Elston Yabut was
a brazen violation which undoubtedly was a valid reason for his disqualification." 7 The trial court concluded:

Indeed the plaintiffs are wanting in good faith. After plaintiff John Elston Yabut had created a cause for his disqualification in the race, he should not be expected to complain when he was eliminated from the contest much less put the blame on herein defendant. The latter merely implemented and promulgated the rules governing the derby. Likewise, the plaintiffs are not entitled to the return of the registration fee after the young Yabut was allowed to race for two (2) games. If he was prevented from pursuing the third race, it was already through his own fault. The court is therefore constrained to deny the grant for damages in favor of the plaintiffs because Art. 21 of the New Civil Code must necessarily be construed as granting the right to recover the damages only to aggrieved persons who are not themselves at fault. 8

The Court of Appeals initially affirmed the trial court's decision and dismissed respondent's appeal in a 3 to 2 decision by a division of five promulgated on March 6, 1992. 9 Not satisfied, the private respondents filed a motion for reconsideration. With the elevation of Justice Jose C. Campos to the Supreme Court and the retirement of Justice Filemon M. Mendoza, a new majority then amended the original Court of Appeals' decision, reversing on December 9, 1992, the lower court' s earlier dismissal of herein respondents' complaint. The dispositive portion of the said amended decision reads:

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs-appellants' motion for reconsideration of the decision of this Court dated April 6, 1992 is GRANTED; and said decision is accordingly AMENDED and MODIFIED in that the judgment of the lower court is hereby REVERSED and instead, this amended decision is hereby rendered finding merit in the plaintiffs' complaint and sentencing appellee corporation to pay plaintiffs the sum of P25,000.00 by way of moral damages, the additional sum of P25,000.00 by way of exemplary damages, the amount of P15,000.00 as attorney's fees and the costs of this suit. 10

Hence, this petition, in which the principal issue raised is whether or not, generally, in a private sports competition a court may substitute its judgment for that made by the competition's officials in the interpretation and enforcement of competition rules.

We find for petitioner.

Alongside formal education, society values the primacy of sports in the formative years crucial to the molding of an individual's personality. The clarity of sports rules and the absence of shadings of gray in the otherwise black and white simplicity of the enforcement of those rules normally facilitate the gradual absorption in the yet-pristine and formative minds of children, society's otherwise complex web of governing rules. Before he begins to master the rules of society, the child must first learn to distinguish between right and wrong, good or evil. In a sense, the sports of those formative years play a role in this process of learning.

As the games become much more complex and as they involve more complicated things like bets, money, appearance fees and the trading of professional athletes, the games and the rules which govern them lose their innate simplicity. The legal rules of contract and obligations and torts and damages take over, and courts are sometimes called upon to deal with questions which appear to fall beyond the competence of referees and umpires, or seconds or arbiters. And yet, even within this sphere, the essential rules governing most sports remain simple and unadulterated. A sprinter loses by a hairbreadth of a second on a difference which would otherwise be dismissed as statistically insignificant in other areas. A Ben Johnson is kicked out of athletics and divested of his Olympic gold medal because a banned substance appears in a laboratory assay of his urine. A weight-lifter is taken out of Olympic competition because weeks before, he had a bad cold and injudiciously took a cough preparation which contained a prohibited compound which later showed up on tests. Our young national team, after winning the Little League World series is divested of its championship on an allegation that certain rules were violated.

In the case of the weightlifter, good faith or bad faith hardly comes into question. He may not have known that the cough preparation he took contained an androgenic steroid. Many of the members of our world series team hardly knew that violations were being made. The ideal simplicity of many of these rules enabled the judges and arbiters, referees and umpires to rule on matters before them with a finality which sometimes puts to shame the complex procedural rules which prevents courts everywhere from dealing with otherwise simple controversies with the same swiftness and finality. However, each belongs to its own sphere. Just as, at a certain stage in life, sports play a role in forming character, the complexity of adult relationships and transactions requires more rules, and then even more rules of greater complexity. Courts of law belong to the latter sphere. It is best, that our courts, as a general rule, leave the former alone.

The idea of justice sometimes harkens to a pristine state in the course of the development of society's ethical and legal norms, exemplified by the rules of the games which children play. Their simplicity serves a purpose, and it would be wrong to impose either harsh legal rules or complicate simple do's and dont's, with good faith and bad faith doctrines more appropriately applicable to adult transactions. Such doctrines only disrupt and confuse, and would only be apt if the adult enforcement of sport's rules were inherently unfair.

There was nothing unfair in the officials' enforcement of the soap box derby rules 11 in the case before us.

As the undisputed facts show, petitioner John Elston Yabut won his first race. In the second race, he was found to be overweight, and an excess weight, a half-pound bolt, was itself removed by officials of the race to bring him down to acceptable weight limits. He lost the second race. In the third race, the offensive half-pound bolt found 12 its way into his pocket and he was disqualified.

The rule book governing the soap box derby race, as adopted and issued by the defendant firm, provides a simple rule: any "additional weight (should) be securely bolted" to the car, and "[n]o movable or lost weight is allowed." To make sure that the rule book covers every conceivable violation, the rules warn that contestants are not allowed to do anything not specifically stated in the rule book. In any case, the rule book clearly provides for the question of additional weights and the rule is clear enough as to leave no room of interpretation.

The Court of Appeals' original Division of Five, which affirmed the trial court's decision was therefore correct in stating that the presence of a half pound weight in petitioner's pocket was a brazen violation of the soap box derby rules. Without reservation, we agree with the respondent court's original majority's holding, written by former Supreme Court Justice Jose C. Campos, Jr., that: 13

There is no need for a keen imagination or a stretch of unusual imagination to comprehend that the keeping by Jose Elston Yabut of a half pound lead weight in his back pocket was a brazen violation of the derby rules. The rules are prescribed and enforced to prevent any participant from taking any unusual advantage of additional weight to accelerate speed going downhill or prevent risks of serious or grave injuries. Should any accident happen while the box car is coming down the high altitude ramp at tremendous speed, the driver may lose control of the box car and hurt himself.

The boy was not disqualified only for having the lead weight in his back pocket. This is only one of the multi-violations committed by Jose Elston Yabut with the father's unwitting assistance in not properly attaching the half-pound lead weight with the screw prescribed for such purpose. We take note of the fact that the weight was handed to the father after it was removed from its attachment at the back of the box car. He knew that it was removed from the car because the car and his son were overweight and that it could only be attached with the consent or approval of derby officials. The father did not follow this rule. Why did he give it to his son instead of asking the derby officials to put it back where it was removed? The father's actuation in this regard is full of uncertainties replete with speculations that he intended to give his son the added weight without knowledge of the derby officials and thus give the boy an advantage over the others.

We can overlook the son's shortcomings or lack of detailed knowledge of the rules but we cannot accept that the father was not aware of the derby rules or that his giving back the weight to his son without putting the weight back where it was removed was done in good faith. It was certainly a clear manifestation of bad faith in giving the lead weight to his son knowing that there was no order from the officials to attach it back.

The soap box derby is a worldwide sports competition for boys. Participation by the minors is by sponsorship by some business or civic organization. The rules are strict and the participants are required to comply strictly with said rules. Any deviation from the rules is a ground for disqualification, unless, like all sports, the disqualification was done arbitrarily to favor one or a few or to discriminate against others. Like all kinds of sporting events, the rules must be strictly followed to insure equality in the sports competition; and respect for decisions of officials duly authorized to execute the rules of the game must at all times be shown. Otherwise, there will be anarchy and chaos and the event will cease to be a sport but a test of guile, trickery and fraud. The rules of sports do not consider exceptions; it exacts obedience to the rules to promote and develop a keen sense of fairness in the field of competition and in the spirit of sportsmanship.

Moreover, the soap box derby race is a privately sponsored event with rules and regulations which mirror the same rules and regulations followed by international soap box derby competitions. As Justice Campos in his ponencia observed: 14

It is not a public sporting event where everybody is free to join and compete. It has rules which must be strictly followed and it has officials duly selected and authorized to enforce the rules . . . Anyone who joins the derby, does so with the clear cut understanding that he shall abide strictly by the rules . . .[D]ecisions may not be pleasant to participants, like the plaintiffs, but the latter may not be allowed to substitute their own judgments over those authorized by the sponsoring body, to conduct the race.

Contrary to the assertions of the respondent court in its amended decision, the question of a contestant's good faith or bad faith hardly comes into the picture in the enforcement of simple competition rules and regulations in sports of this nature. The motive (or absence of motive) behind the presence of the half pound weight in the private respondent's pocket was of no moment. If there was intent to cheat, it was wrong and the rules disqualified him. If there was no intent to cheat, and the offending weight found its way in his pocket for one or another reason, it was there and its presence violated the derby rules, which led to private respondent's disqualification. Simple as that. If legal notions were allowed to intrude at every level in the enforcement of rules of private (or even public) sporting events, there will result anarchy and chaos, as virtually every decision by an umpire, or referee or sports judge could be subject to question and every disqualification based on a clear-cut rule would be qualified by the presence or absence of good faith or bad faith, or the question of motive or intent. Spectators will then have to await the result of sporting events, not from rafters or from media, but from announcements made by judges through court personnel reading aloud legal decisions.

What will prevent our athletes for national or international competitions � when found to have a banned substance in their urine � from asserting that the substance was taken as part of regular medication in good faith? How may courts ascertain with definiteness a competitor's excuse based on good faith in a claim for damages against his disqualification by the sponsors of a competitive athletic event? In an increasingly litigious society, the ramifications of courts' increasing intrusions into matters which ought to be settled by sports bodies are many. Encouraging the trend would ultimately pervert the yet-untouched area of childhood sporting events. Unless a clear case is found for arbitrary and brazen violations or applications of sports rules by officials and sponsors themselves, and no such thing happened here, it is best for courts to prudently leave things where they are.

Finally, petitioner's assertion that other contestants likewise violated the derby rules by placing illegal weights on their caps or in other parts of their body (an assertion given credence by respondent court in its amended decision) is a bare statement which was never supported or proven by competent evidence in the trial Court. According to the respondent court, videotaped evidence was supposed to have been introduced 15 in support of the allegation that other contestants may have been as guilty as the private respondent in possessing illegal weights during the third race. However, no specific allegations as to whether or not specific contestants were allowed to race in spite of their being overweight and it would be impossible to estimate even relative weights from a television screen replaying a videotape of the event.

In fine, the circuitous route the case at bench has taken through our courts would have been unnecessary had private respondents observed ordinary rules of sportsmanship and sporting play following John Elston Yabut's disqualification. The maxim that "the judges decision is final" simplifies sports adjudication to a degree which the larger arena of life does not ordinarily mirror. Nonetheless, it is a simplicity in procedure which we of the courts ought to altogether idealize or sometimes aim for.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court of Appeals Amended Decision dated December 9, 1992 is hereby REVERSED and the trial court's decision REINSTATED.

SO ORDERED.

Padilla, Davide, Jr., Bellosillo and Hermosisima, Jr., JJ., concur.

oca
08-26-2007, 08:42 PM
Hindi ako abogado, pero malinaw ang pagkakasulat ng nasa itaas.

With the issue now besetting the NCAA where SBC secured a TRO against the enforcement of a suspension order on one of its players, there are fears it may have set a precedent where teams will seek redress from the courts to contest an issue that does not favor their interest--- eg reversing outcome/ result of a competition due to a disputed call or decision by game officials.

Sa puntong iyan, hindi manghihimasok ang korte.

pablohoney
08-27-2007, 03:30 AM
A great read oca.
May jurisprudence na pala na ganun.

Regarding the SBC-NCAA ManCom(?) issue, may posibilidad ba na ma-forfeit ang games na nilaruan ni Aljamal AFTER ng PBA Draft? Mukhang mahabang proseso ang pagdadaanan nito, sana ay maayos na ito ASAP. Nakaka-distract sa players ang mga ganito. At baka nga maging precedence pa ito.

** Ok talagang ponente si Kapunan. :)

Bennie Bangag
08-27-2007, 06:06 AM
hmmm, i don't think SBC established a precedent in so far as seeking redress through the judicial courts. not long ago, letran filed and successfully blocked a suspension order for one of its players.

for me, the object lesson is for any governing organization to be more fair and circumspect in fielding protests and meting sanctions.

razor
08-27-2007, 08:08 AM
The case cited does NOT totally prohibit the filing of legal suits to question decisions of sports officials. I noted 2 striking EXCEPTIONS, which are applicable to the present issue:


If legal notions were allowed to intrude at every level in the enforcement of rules of private (or even public) sporting events, there will result anarchy and chaos, as virtually every decision by an umpire, or referee or sports judge could be subject to question and every disqualification based on a clear-cut rule would be qualified by the presence or absence of good faith or bad faith, or the question of motive or intent. Spectators will then have to await the result of sporting events, not from rafters or from media, but from announcements made by judges through court personnel reading aloud legal decisions.


The cited case only precludes the filing of a legal suit to question the decision of sports officials IF there is a CLEAR CUT RULE. Is there really an NCAA RULE on the present issue? It is the position of SBC that no such clear cut written rule is in place as to cause the disqualification of Aljamal. It should be noted that in the MANCOM Memorandum disqualifying Aljamal, no specific rule in the NCAA Rulebook was cited. Up to now, the NCAA has not answered this basic question. Definitely, SBC can invoke the authority of the courts to look into this matter if we are to go by the cited decision.


Unless a clear case is found for arbitrary and brazen violations or applications of sports rules by officials and sponsors themselves, xxx, it is best for courts to prudently leave things where they are.


The real matter in issue in the case filed by SBC is the capricious and whimsical disqualification of Aljamal by the MANCOM. The quoted portion of the decision again gives us one more instance wherein the decision of sports officials may be questioned. We all know how the events transpired (see Timeline posted in the Red Lions' Den) and the actions taken by MANCOM before and after the PBA draft. Now, we may ask this questions: (i) are the acts of the MANCOM arbitrary? were these made in brazen violation of Aljamal's and SBC's rights to substantial and procedural due process? Obviously, SBC can implore again the aid of the court to look into these matters and seek relief.

;)

Joescoundrel
08-27-2007, 01:37 PM
Justice Kapunan for NCAA Commissioner in Seaosn 84! ;D

oca
08-27-2007, 03:17 PM
pablohoney,

I decided to search it at google after hearing the phone patch interview on Atayde at Hardball saying it set a bad percedent, and also after hearing a group of "nagmamarunongs" at a UAAP game saying, "... paano yan pag may maling interpretation ng rules, file ka ng kaso?".

Malinaw at paulit-ulit sinabi ng Korte Suprema sa kanilang desisyon na dapat pairalin ang rules ng game at hindi dapat manghimasok ang korte sa pagdetermina ang resulta ng laro. Kung tapos na ang laro, labas na ang hukum sa usapan.

Tama ang mga bedista, sabihin lang nang Mancom yung rule mismo na na-violate, tapos na ang usapan.

Imo, all this- the Letran and San Beda TROs and this Supreme Court ruling- can serve as an example to members of the UAAP. The "whimsical tendencies of the Board" is no secret. Pag dumating yung pagkakataon, dapat sampolan!

atenean_blooded
08-27-2007, 04:59 PM
The case cited does NOT totally prohibit the filing of legal suits to question decisions of sports officials. I noted 2 striking EXCEPTIONS, which are applicable to the present issue:


If legal notions were allowed to intrude at every level in the enforcement of rules of private (or even public) sporting events, there will result anarchy and chaos, as virtually every decision by an umpire, or referee or sports judge could be subject to question and every disqualification based on a clear-cut rule would be qualified by the presence or absence of good faith or bad faith, or the question of motive or intent. Spectators will then have to await the result of sporting events, not from rafters or from media, but from announcements made by judges through court personnel reading aloud legal decisions.


The cited case only precludes the filing of a legal suit to question the decision of sports officials IF there is a CLEAR CUT RULE. Is there really an NCAA RULE on the present issue? It is the position of SBC that no such clear cut written rule is in place as to cause the disqualification of Aljamal. It should be noted that in the MANCOM Memorandum disqualifying Aljamal, no specific rule in the NCAA Rulebook was cited. Up to now, the NCAA has not answered this basic question. Definitely, SBC can invoke the authority of the courts to look into this matter if we are to go by the cited decision.


Unless a clear case is found for arbitrary and brazen violations or applications of sports rules by officials and sponsors themselves, xxx, it is best for courts to prudently leave things where they are.


The real matter in issue in the case filed by SBC is the capricious and whimsical disqualification of Aljamal by the MANCOM. The quoted portion of the decision again gives us one more instance wherein the decision of sports officials may be questioned. We all know how the events transpired (see Timeline posted in the Red Lions' Den) and the actions taken by MANCOM before and after the PBA draft. Now, we may ask this questions: (i) are the acts of the MANCOM arbitrary? were these made in brazen violation of Aljamal's and SBC's rights to substantial and procedural due process?* Obviously, SBC can implore again the aid of the court to look into these matters and seek relief.

;)
*


This is still a bit shaky. Sports are outside the scope of judicial power given to the courts. The courts will not (and ought not) to exceed their jurisdiction. In other cases, the Supreme Court rejected pleas by parties that it re-settle the outcomes of competitions (particularly related to things which did not involve the violation of laws, such as the selection of a school's valedictorian, and a beauty contest), and even rejected a plea that it step it as a board of arbitrators.

Sam Miguel
08-27-2007, 06:47 PM
It will be a sad day in sports when athletes, teams and coaches have to resort to filing suit instead of settling things on the court or on the field.

Still, there may be instances when the only thing an athlete, coaches and teams can do is file suit, such as when a tournament organizer promises a cash prize to a winner and then does not deliver. But then again that could be estafa and thus not actually a sports "crime" per se.

Let's try a hypothetical: pretend that there is a rule that says "RANDOM DRUG TESTS MAY BE PERFORMED AT ANYTIME DURING THE OLYMPIC GAMES. IF AN ATHLETE WINS A MEDAL AND IS FOUND TO HAVE USED A PROHIBITED AND/OR PERFORMANCE ENHANCING SUBSTANCE DURING SUCH RANDOM TESTING DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE GAMES, HE OR SHE SHALL BE STRIPPED OF SAID MEDAL. THE MEDAL IN QUESTION WILL THEN BE AWARDED TO THE ATHLETE NEXT IN LINE, FINISH OR SCORE."

What if, under this kind of regime, an athelte wins the gold medal in say the 100 meter dash. A year after he won the medal he goes to the media and says he used prohibited substances but was simply not subjected to the random drug test. In other words nakalusot siya.

The silver medalist then asks the IOC to award the gold medal to him given the gold medalist's revelation. But the IOC says the revelation was not the result of a random drug test as stated in the rule above. Do you think the silver medalist should file suit to compel the IOC to reward the medal to him?

atenean_blooded
08-27-2007, 07:36 PM
It will be a sad day in sports when athletes, teams and coaches have to resort to filing suit instead of settling things on the court or on the field.

Still, there may be instances when the only thing an athlete, coaches and teams can do is file suit, such as when a tournament organizer promises a cash prize to a winner and then does not deliver. But then again that could be estafa and thus not actually a sports "crime" per se.

Let's try a hypothetical: pretend that there is a rule that says "RANDOM DRUG TESTS MAY BE PERFORMED AT ANYTIME DURING THE OLYMPIC GAMES. IF AN ATHLETE WINS A MEDAL AND IS FOUND TO HAVE USED A PROHIBITED AND/OR PERFORMANCE ENHANCING SUBSTANCE DURING SUCH RANDOM TESTING DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE GAMES, HE OR SHE SHALL BE STRIPPED OF SAID MEDAL. THE MEDAL IN QUESTION WILL THEN BE AWARDED TO THE ATHLETE NEXT IN LINE, FINISH OR SCORE."

What if, under this kind of regime, an athelte wins the gold medal in say the 100 meter dash. A year after he won the medal he goes to the media and says he used prohibited substances but was simply not subjected to the random drug test. In other words nakalusot siya.

The silver medalist then asks the IOC to award the gold medal to him given the gold medalist's revelation. But the IOC says the revelation was not the result of a random drug test as stated in the rule above. Do you think the silver medalist should file suit to compel the IOC to reward the medal to him?* *


Question: Where are you going to file suit?

Sam Miguel
08-28-2007, 08:22 AM
^ I was thinking about that as well Blooded. Perhaps in Geneva (?) where the IOC is based? But then again does the Swiss court have jurisdiction over the IOC? Perhaps we should get an opinion first whether or not there is a justiciable action on the part of the silver medalist.

oca
08-28-2007, 08:57 AM
It will be a sad day in sports when athletes, teams and coaches have to resort to filing suit instead of settling things on the court or on the field.

Still, there may be instances when the only thing an athlete, coaches and teams can do is file suit, such as when a tournament organizer promises a cash prize to a winner and then does not deliver. But then again that could be estafa and thus not actually a sports "crime" per se.

Let's try a hypothetical: pretend that there is a rule that says "RANDOM DRUG TESTS MAY BE PERFORMED AT ANYTIME DURING THE OLYMPIC GAMES. IF AN ATHLETE WINS A MEDAL AND IS FOUND TO HAVE USED A PROHIBITED AND/OR PERFORMANCE ENHANCING SUBSTANCE DURING SUCH RANDOM TESTING DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE GAMES, HE OR SHE SHALL BE STRIPPED OF SAID MEDAL. THE MEDAL IN QUESTION WILL THEN BE AWARDED TO THE ATHLETE NEXT IN LINE, FINISH OR SCORE."

What if, under this kind of regime, an athelte wins the gold medal in say the 100 meter dash. A year after he won the medal he goes to the media and says he used prohibited substances but was simply not subjected to the random drug test. In other words nakalusot siya.

The silver medalist then asks the IOC to award the gold medal to him given the gold medalist's revelation. But the IOC says the revelation was not the result of a random drug test as stated in the rule above. Do you think the silver medalist should file suit to compel the IOC to reward the medal to him?* *


Per IOC rules, in every World Championships of an Olympic event and in the Olympics mismo the top 3 finishers are subjected to mandatory testing. Then, another athlete outside the top 3 is subjected to a random test kasabayan ng top 3.

Also, in all Olympic disciplines, all those who competed at the World Championship, Grand Prix events and the Olympics, there is a random testing IN BETWEEN EVENTS. Those who refuse to be subjected to that random testing in between events may be sanctioned. One cannot refuse because when one signs up for these events, these rules and conditions are integral part of the competition. In fact, to be an a participant in these event is to be a member of an athletic association subject to the rules of a governing body. All these sports governing body are under the umbrella of the IOC.

If one disgrees with the random testing in between events, then maybe you can file a case in court questioning its legality. Do so before you sign up and before you compete. But after you signed up and competed, you are then covered by these rules.

Kaya hindi pwede yang hypothetical na yan. ;D

At kung babalikan natin ang sinabi ng ating Korte Suprema, dapat manaig yung rules ng competition. At sino mang kusang-loob na lumahok ay dapt tumalima sa mga nasabing competition rules.

Ang nakikita kong pwedeng maging hypothetical, this may apply to both the NCAA and UAAP, in between seasons if there is a current provision in the rule book w/c you may now find questionable with respect to the rights of members schools and student athletes, at kung ayaw baguhin ng Board ang nasabing rule, pwedeng idulog sa korte.

Panghuli, hindi na magiging hypothetical yung dumulog ka sa korte dahil sa ruling ng wala namang batayan sa rule book.

Kid Cubao
08-28-2007, 09:05 AM
right on, oca. nabawian na ng medalya sina butch reynolds, former 400-meter world record holder, at syempre si ben johnson nung 1988 olympics.

atenean_blooded
08-28-2007, 11:56 AM
At kung babalikan natin ang sinabi ng ating Korte Suprema, dapat manaig yung rules ng competition. At sino mang kusang-loob na lumahok ay dapt tumalima sa mga nasabing competition rules.

Ang nakikita kong pwedeng maging hypothetical, this may apply to both the NCAA and UAAP, in between seasons if there is a current provision in the rule book w/c you may now find questionable with respect to the rights of members schools and student athletes, at kung ayaw baguhin ng Board ang nasabing rule, pwedeng idulog sa korte.

Panghuli, hindi na magiging hypothetical yung dumulog ka sa korte dahil sa ruling ng wala namang batayan sa rule book.


Ang akin lang, tingin ko hindi pa rin gagalawin ng korte ang kaso dahil lang sa ayaw baguhin ng isang private sports association ang rules nila. Sapagkat meron pang isa pang remedy na available at hindi nangangailangan pa ng korte, medyo drastic nga lang: withdrawal mula sa nasabing league.

At gaya ng nabanggit ko dati pa, labas na ang mga usaping ganito sa kapangyarihan ng mga korte.

oca
08-28-2007, 12:25 PM
At kung babalikan natin ang sinabi ng ating Korte Suprema, dapat manaig yung rules ng competition. At sino mang kusang-loob na lumahok ay dapt tumalima sa mga nasabing competition rules.

Ang nakikita kong pwedeng maging hypothetical, this may apply to both the NCAA and UAAP, in between seasons if there is a current provision in the rule book w/c you may now find questionable with respect to the rights of members schools and student athletes, at kung ayaw baguhin ng Board ang nasabing rule, pwedeng idulog sa korte.

Panghuli, hindi na magiging hypothetical yung dumulog ka sa korte dahil sa ruling ng wala namang batayan sa rule book.


Ang akin lang, tingin ko hindi pa rin gagalawin ng korte ang kaso dahil lang sa ayaw baguhin ng isang private sports association ang rules nila. Sapagkat meron pang isa pang remedy na available at hindi nangangailangan pa ng korte, medyo drastic nga lang: withdrawal mula sa nasabing league.

At gaya ng nabanggit ko dati pa, labas na ang mga usaping ganito sa kapangyarihan ng mga korte.


May isang rule na gusto kong masubukan kung papasa sa paghuhusga ng hukom. Yung - "Soc Rivera Rule".

Imo, yang Rule na yan ay may infringement sa karapatan ng isang "student-athlete". Oo, di nito nilalabag ang karapatan ng isang "student" as it does not prevent him from transfering schools and continue with his education. Pero pangkaraniwan na sa lipunan yung may mahirap na aasa lang sa isang "athletic-scholarship" para makapag-aral.

If a "student athlete" can get something better at another school, why should that student athlete not be allowed to transfer AND play under that scholarship? If sitting out one year due to the absense of a "clearance" from the HS where he came from will deter or discourage a university or college from giving him that scholarship, as he cannot be of immediate service, then may infringement.

Also, universities and colleges are regulated by a body which is different from that which regulates high schools.

So, how come a HS graduate can be tied up with a "sports program" when HS and higher learning are infact distinct and separate from one another?

IMO, this rule can and should be challenged. If none of the UAAP member schools would challenge it, I believe a PARENT/GUARDIAN can do so. Maybe even a "disinterested" party may want to challenge it on the principle that it infringes on the rights of a "student athlete".

Wang-Bu
08-28-2007, 01:42 PM
^^^ Ewan ko lang Sir Oca, tancha ko lang karapatan ng UAAP bilang isang pribadong organisasyon na magtaguyod ng mga alituntunin na sa kanilang palagay ay nakabubuti para sa kanila.

Kumbaga kung may karapatan ang isang nilalang na mag-matrikula sa paaralan na gusto niya, may karapatan din naman siguro ang isang ligang pampalakasan na magtalaga ng mga patakaran nila.

Tancha ko lang hindi naman yata tamang mandohan ng husgado ang isang pribadong organisasyon na "buksan ang kanilang puso" upang pagbigyan lang ang isang nilalang na makapasok sa isang paaralan upang maging manlalaro sa paaralan na 'yon. Para mo na din sinabing mas marunong pa ang husgado kung papano patatakbuhin ang kalakal at iba pang gawain ng isang pribadong organisasyon. Parang 'yung kaso nung Garcia na ultimo fuel ng planta pinakialaman ng Korte Suprema.

atenean_blooded
08-28-2007, 01:58 PM
May isang rule na gusto kong masubukan kung papasa sa paghuhusga ng hukom. Yung* - "Soc Rivera Rule".

Imo, yang Rule na yan ay may infringement sa karapatan ng isang "student-athlete". Oo, di nito nilalabag ang karapatan ng isang "student" as it does not prevent him from transfering schools and continue with his education. Pero pangkaraniwan na sa lipunan yung may mahirap na aasa lang sa isang "athletic-scholarship" para makapag-aral.

If a "student athlete" can get something better at another school, why should that student athlete not be allowed to transfer AND play under that scholarship? If sitting out one year due to the absense of a "clearance" from the HS where he came from will deter or discourage a university or college from giving him that scholarship, as he cannot be of immediate service, then may infringement.

Also, universities and colleges are regulated by a body which is different from that which regulates high schools.

So, how come a HS graduate can be tied up with a "sports program" when HS and higher learning are infact distinct and separate from one another?

IMO, this rule can and should be challenged. If none of the UAAP member schools would challenge it, I believe a PARENT/GUARDIAN can do so. Maybe even a "disinterested" party may want to challenge it on the principle that it infringes on the rights of a "student athlete".


Malabo pa rin.

The UAAP is a private organization, and it is free to set requirements for eligibility. Member schools have the choice of complying, or simply not placing themselves into a situation where they have to comply by not fielding players who are covered by the rule in question. As regards the student athlete, nobody is forcing him or her to play for a UAAP school.

There seems to be no justiciable issue.

oca
08-28-2007, 02:07 PM
May isang rule na gusto kong masubukan kung papasa sa paghuhusga ng hukom. Yung* - "Soc Rivera Rule".

Imo, yang Rule na yan ay may infringement sa karapatan ng isang "student-athlete". Oo, di nito nilalabag ang karapatan ng isang "student" as it does not prevent him from transfering schools and continue with his education. Pero pangkaraniwan na sa lipunan yung may mahirap na aasa lang sa isang "athletic-scholarship" para makapag-aral.

If a "student athlete" can get something better at another school, why should that student athlete not be allowed to transfer AND play under that scholarship? If sitting out one year due to the absense of a "clearance" from the HS where he came from will deter or discourage a university or college from giving him that scholarship, as he cannot be of immediate service, then may infringement.

Also, universities and colleges are regulated by a body which is different from that which regulates high schools.

So, how come a HS graduate can be tied up with a "sports program" when HS and higher learning are infact distinct and separate from one another?

IMO, this rule can and should be challenged. If none of the UAAP member schools would challenge it, I believe a PARENT/GUARDIAN can do so. Maybe even a "disinterested" party may want to challenge it on the principle that it infringes on the rights of a "student athlete".


Malabo pa rin.

The UAAP is a private organization, and it is free to set requirements for eligibility. Member schools have the choice of complying, or simply not placing themselves into a situation where they have to comply by not fielding players who are covered by the rule in question. As regards the student athlete, nobody is forcing him or her to play for a UAAP school.

There seems to be no justiciable issue.


Kaya nga may hukoman para linangin ang ano mang isyu. ;)

atenean_blooded
08-28-2007, 02:28 PM
Kaya nga may hukoman para linangin ang ano mang isyu.* ;)


Not if you go back to the extent of the judicial power given to the courts by the Constitution.

And you can't just take things up with the court and ask the court to divine the issues for you.

oca
08-28-2007, 02:34 PM
... at hindi dahil pribadong samahan yan at sinang-ayunan ng mga miembro ang isang patakaran, hindi na pwedeng kuwestyunin ang nasabing patakaran sa hukuman.

Any party who is adversely affected, in principle, by a certain provision, has the right to seek redress.

A situation I have in mind is, if there is a "non-recruited athlete", one who studied at a school even before becoming an athlete and grew to become a very good athlete, if he decides to transfer to another school for college, what right does his high school not to give him clearance? Naiintindihan ko pa yung "recruited student athletes". The intent to use them for a specific purpose is there from the very start. Pero kung di naman ako recruited, bakit naman ako subjected to "clearance"?

For the court to come in is not adjucating the outcome of competition, w/c the SC said is not their domain. Rather, to determine if an "eligibility rule" does not infringe on one's right to choose.

atenean_blooded
08-29-2007, 12:07 AM
... at hindi dahil pribadong samahan yan at sinang-ayunan ng mga miembro ang isang patakaran, hindi na pwedeng kuwestyunin ang nasabing patakaran sa hukuman.

Any party who is adversely affected, in principle, by a certain provision, has the right to seek redress.

A situation I have in mind is, if there is a "non-recruited athlete", one who studied at a school even before becoming an athlete and grew to become a very good athlete, if he decides to transfer to another school for college, what right does his high school not to give him clearance? Naiintindihan ko pa yung "recruited student athletes". The intent to use them for a specific purpose is there from the very start. Pero kung di naman ako recruited, bakit naman ako subjected to "clearance"?

For the court to come in is not adjucating the outcome of competition, w/c the SC said is not their domain. Rather, to determine if an "eligibility rule" does not infringe on one's right to choose.



You're talking about a UAAP rule. There are 8 UAAP schools. The issue is between the member schools, and the appropriate remedy is to address this from within the league.

Wang-Bu
08-29-2007, 09:10 AM
^^^ "Exhaust all administrative remedies" muna, ika nga ni Dean Amado Valdez ng UE College of Law. Tama ba Sir Blooded?

At sa totoo lang hindi naman yata tamang magdikta ang Korte Suprema sa isang pribadong organisasyon pagdating sa kanilang mga reglamento. Kung gustong gawing requirement kunwari ng UAAP na dapat mastered ng lahat ng manlalaro ang wikang Swahili at dapat every semester naka-enroll sa isang dance course ang manlalaro dahil lang trip nila wala naman sigurong pakialam ang husgado dun... ;D

atenean_blooded
08-29-2007, 11:05 AM
^^^ "Exhaust all administrative remedies" muna, ika nga ni Dean Amado Valdez ng UE College of Law. Tama ba Sir Blooded?

At sa totoo lang hindi naman yata tamang magdikta ang Korte Suprema sa isang pribadong organisasyon pagdating sa kanilang mga reglamento. Kung gustong gawing requirement kunwari ng UAAP na dapat mastered ng lahat ng manlalaro ang wikang Swahili at dapat every semester naka-enroll sa isang dance course ang manlalaro dahil lang trip nila wala naman sigurong pakialam ang husgado dun... ;D*


Tama, at sa tingin ko, puro "administrative remedy" lang nga ang magagamit.

CPA_LLB
08-29-2007, 11:15 AM
^^^ "Exhaust all administrative remedies" muna, ika nga ni Dean Amado Valdez ng UE College of Law.

Well, if the NCAA invoked this doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, the action of San Beda in seeking relief from the courts to prevent the implementation of ManCom's suspension of Aljamal clearly falls under the exceptions to this rule: 1) there is an urgent need for judicial intervention; 2) irreparable damage cannot be prevented except by taking opportune appropriate court action; and 3) there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy.

The memo suspending Aljamal was dated 8 August but was received on the 21st, and San Beda had a game against JRU the following day, the 22nd. There was not enough time to make a timely and effective appeal to the NCAA Policy Board. These circumstances evidently show that it was maliciously intended to prevent Aljamal from playing against JRU and San Beda could not possibly seek any reconsideration from the NCAA. Indeed, the only remedy available to San Beda then was to secure the TRO from the RTC. The order of the RTC granting the TRO for 72 hours, as posted in some other thread in gameface, actually recognized that the remedy sought in the Aljamal case falls within the exceptions to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies.

We're just talking here about procedure. With regard to the validity of ManCom's decision to suspend Aljamal, it now appears that it will never be resolved by the court in view of the compromise already made by the NCAA and San Beda. So i guess the issue of whether it was a justiciable question in the first place will remain unanswered.

oca
08-29-2007, 11:35 AM
Huwag natin alisin sa isipan natin yung terminong “student-athlete”.

When you graduate from HS, ano ang iyong katayuan bilang mag-aaral?

Technically, you are not a student of any learning institution, until you enroll for your first semester in college.

So, what hold does you previous HS have on you?

Yung bang scholarship na tinanggap mo while you were a HS student-athlete binds you to your school after HS? Hindi maaari. Dahil yung paglalaro sa nasabing academic year na ikaw ay isang scholar ang kapalit nuon.

When the school offered you that scholarship and you accepted it, does it mean the school has "perpetual proprietary rights" over you that you need to ask clearance to play at another school the following academic year, but now as a college student, within the UAAP?

Ang HS graduate ba ay isang commodity na pag-aari ng pamantasan at kung walang pahintulot ay di makakalipat at makakalaro sa ibang miembro ng organization?

Para na yang pro or commercial player.

Yes, the UAAP Board approved that rule. But publicly we know it was intended to protect the interest of the schools.

Paano yung interest ng student-athlete?

Lastly, I just don’t believe this issue on the “Soc Rivera Rule” is outside the domain of the Courts. What the SC said is the Courts should not be adjudicating competitions. Eligibility rules are prior competition concerns. It is not the competition mismo (Though to some recruitment is competition.) Kaya sa pananaw ko pwede yang kuwestyunin sa hukom kung makatwiran ba o hindi.

Saan ba nagsisimula at nagtatapos ang karapatan ng isang paaralan o high school patungkol sa “paghawak” nila sa isang student athlete na kaka-graduate lang ng high school?

It would not be wise to have this answered by the UAAP for obvious reasons. An "outside party" should make the determination. Here, I believe the courts may come in.

This has been a nice exchange, at nasabi ko na yata ang dapat kong sabihin. I will move on from here and ateneo_blooded and wang-bu can have the final word.

atenean_blooded
08-29-2007, 11:52 AM
CPA_LLB:

Assuming the compromise did not materialize, what cause of action would there be in the litigation between SBC and the NCAA? Since it appears that the TRO was the main objective, and possibly an injunction if it came to that, what about the substantive points?



oca:

The UAAP Board enacted that rule among its members, and is of an application that member schools will have to deal with.

As a high school graduate, it's true that no one "owns" you. And that is true enough that nobody can force you to play for the UAAP. And nobody can force the UAAP to accept you. By wanting to join a UAAP team, you submit yourself to the requirements of the UAAP. It would be patently unfair for you to want to join the UAAP as an athlete, and for you to impose your own desires on the UAAP.

The thing is, the UAAP has private rules for the eligibility of athletes, much like most clubs have membership requirements, which, while not exactly appealing, remain outside the ambit of judicial power, as has been explained in both our jurisprudence and by writers. And just like sports competitions, the courts will not and ought not to touch these matters, because they are outside the jurisdiction of the courts. The issue is not justiciable.

Regarding the deprivation of scholarships, that is something beyond the scope of the rule. And that particular aspect of the controversy surrounding the Soc Rivera rule is governed by laws on contractual relations, there being actual contractual relations formed by the scholarship. In which case, the courts can hear a legal controversy.

CPA_LLB
08-29-2007, 03:23 PM
CPA_LLB:

Assuming the compromise did not materialize, what cause of action would there be in the litigation between SBC and the NCAA? Since it appears that the TRO was the main objective, and possibly an injunction if it came to that, what about the substantive points?


I don't really know the answers. From the newspaper reports and the posts here of Bedans who know something about it, the arguments of the school are first, there is no written and clear-cut NCAA rule/regulation requiring a player to seek and obtain permission from the NCAA if he intends to join the PBA draft; and second, Aljamal did not participate in a tournament outside of the NCAA since the Rookie training camp is not a "contest" but merely a scrimmage to showcase the draft applicants' skills. I assume that the legal theory of the petition filed was based on these points.

The way I see it, the difficulty in answering the questions you raised is because of the peculiar aspect of securing a TRO in the sense that it can be anticipatory, that is, San Beda would have been disadvantaged if the suspension of Aljamal was implemented. It's different to the cause of action that we normally would use in filing a suit because there is already an injury, such as in breach of a contract - collection case, the failure to pay on maturity.

Anyway, perhaps the filing of the TRO and the subsequent compromise agreement were part of the legal strategy of SBC. We can only guess. The bottomline is, San Beda practically got what it wanted. Aljamal was not suspended although he would sit out the remaining 2 games and the school offered its apology. Kumita nga lang ang mga abogado. But that's good for the lawyers and future lawyers as well* ;)