ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[ G.R. No. 130899. January 17, 2000]
JESUS G. PASQUIN vs. JOSE V. CASTRO, et al.
FIRST DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 17 2000.
G.R. No. 130899 (Jesus G. Pasquin vs. Jose V. Castro and Adidas Rubberworld (Phil.), Inc.)
Petitioner seeks the reversal of the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated August 5, 1997 which reversed the decision of the trial court in Civil Case No. 13087 and its Resolution dated October 2, 1997 denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
The facts of the case are as follows:
Respondent Castro, in his capacity as President of Intersports, Inc., was the organizer of the Pilipinas Third World Marathon which was held on February 17, 1985. Through a Notice to Competitors, he made a commitment to award to the top male Filipino entry in the 42.195 kilometers marathon, a round trip ticket to the Honolulu Marathon. Said Notice in part reads:
11. Official over-all, division and age category results will be announced during the awards ceremony at 9:30 a.m. The following awards and prizes will be given to the winners:
11.1. 42,195 km Marathon
a) ROUND TRIP TICKET TO THE 1985 HONOLULU MARATHON TO THE TOP MALE FILIPINO ENTRY.
b) DOUBLY IMPORTANT !!!
IN CASE ANY ONE OF THE WINNERS OF THE MAJOR PRIZES TO HONOLULU, TOKYO WOMEN'S MARATHON AND HONGKONG SHALL BE UNABLE TO AVAIL OF THE PRIZE. FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER, THE ORGANIZER RESERVES THE RIGHT TO AWARD SUCH PRIZE TO THE NEXT BEST RUNNER, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ORGANIZER(S) AND SPONSORS OF THE PILIPINAS THIRD WORLD MARATHON.
IGNORANCE OF THIS RULE IS NO EXCUSE FOR EXEMPTION. 1 Rollo , p. 34.
Respondent Adidas Rubberworld
(Phils), Inc., under the Sponsorship Agreement, agreed to co-sponsor the
marathon event, putting in the amount of FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P400,000.00).2
Ibid.
The said agreement also stated that in return,
INTERSPORTS shall organize and stage a marathon race on February 17, 1985 to be
called the Pilipinas Third World Marathon.3
Rollo,
p. 35.
Petitioner was among the competitors in the said Pilipinas Third World Marathon and finished fourth in the said contest. Being the top Filipino entry, he was given due honors at the awards ceremonies and became entitled to the round trip ticket to the 1985 Honolulu Marathon.4 Ibid.
Petitioner, however, was unable to participate in the Honolulu Marathon and blamed the respondent for it. He filed a complaint against herein respondent for recovery of actual, moral and exemplary damages as well as attorney's fees.
The trial court rendered its decision the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered
ordering defendants Castro and Rubberworld jointly and severally to pay
plaintiff the following: the cash value of a round-trip ticket to Honolulu
computed at the prevailing rate as of 8 December 1985, or P26,206.00
plus interest at the legal rate from the said date as actual damages; P5,000.00,
likewise as actual damages; P100,000.00 as moral damages; P50,000.00
as exemplary damages; and, P50,000.00 a attorney's fees.
Defendants are also ordered to pay the cost of the suit.
SO ORDERED. 5 Rollo, p. 33.
Respondents Castro and Rubberworld interposed a twin appeal before the Court of Appeals which was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 35431. On August 5, 1997, the Court of Appeals rendered the questioned decision, the decretal portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, another judgment is rendered dismissing the complaint.
No pronouncement as to cost.
SO ORDERED. 6 Id., at 40.
A motion for reconsideration was filed by petitioner but this was denied. Hence, this petition wherein petitioner advances the following arguments, to wit:
1
PETITIONER IS ENTITLED OUTRIGHT TO THE PRIZE OF ROUND-TRIP TICKET TO HONOLULU UNDER THE SPONSORSHIP AGREEMENT AND NOTICE TO COMPETITORS ISSUED BY RESPONDENTS RELATIVE TO THE PILIPINAS THIRD WORLD MARATHON.
11
ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT THE PRIZE MAY BE AVAILED OF ONLY BY ACTUALLY PARTICIPATING IN THE HONOLULU MARATHON, PETITIONER'S FAILURE TO SO PARTICIPATE IN SAID MARATHON CAN WELL BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE RESPONDENTS.
111
THE MATTER OF REGISTERING IN THE HONOLULU MARATHON AND SECURING THE NECESSARY TRAVEL DOCUMENTS DOES NOT PERTAIN SOLELY TO PETITIONER BUT TO RESPONDENTS AS WELL, THE LATTER BEING THE ORGANIZER AND/OR SPONSOR OF THE PILIPINAS MARATHON. 7 Id., at 18.
The Petition is without merit.
While it is true that respondents undertook to give to the top Filipino male entry in the Pilipinas Third World Marathon a round trip ticket to the 1985 Honolulu Marathon, the organizer and sponsor never undertook to secure the necessary documents, such as the Visa, for the petitioner to enable him to go abroad and participate in the Marathon. Moreover, nothing in the records shows that petitioner exerted effort to ask respondents to help him in securing the necessary documents for him to be able to travel to Honolulu, Hawaii. Thus, we quote with favor the Court of Appeals on this matter:
The Notice enumerates the awards and prizes the competitors expected to win in the Marathon. Nothing is said about other prizes. And no reference is made whatsoever to the Sponsorship Agreement, which is only between Intersports, Inc. and Rubberworld. Apart from what are mentioned in the Notice, the competitors did not expect to win other awards or prizes. Clearly, the top Filipino male finisher in the marathon was entitled only to a "round trip ticket to the 1985 Honolulu Marathon." And the prize may be availed of by the winner only by actually participating in said marathon event, it being expressly stated in the Notice that "in case anyone of the winners of the major prizes to Honolulu, Tokyo Women's Marathon and Hongkong shall be unable to avail of the prize, for any reason, whatsoever, the organizer reserves the right to award such prize to the next best runner, without prejudice to the organizer(s) and sponsors of the Pilipinas Third World Marathon."
The stipulation in the Sponsorship Agreement that the top Filipino male finisher shall be the official representative of the country in the 1985 Honolulu Marathon is, therefore, conditioned upon the winner's availing himself of the free round-trip ticket by participating in said marathon. Appellee having failed to participate in said marathon, appellants could not have made him the country's official representative thereto.
Appellant Castro's appeal focuses on who is to blame for appellee's failure to participate in the 1985 Honolulu Marathon. The court a quo faults appellants for failing to register appellee as participant and for not obtaining the requisite travel papers for him, such as a passport and a U.S. visa. But neither the organizer nor the sponsors of the marathon undertook to do these chores for the winners. The matter of registration as a participant was appellee's responsibility, he being at liberty to join or not to join the Honolulu Marathon. As to the travel documents, it is too much to expect appellants to secure these for him. The passport as well as the visa may be issued only upon application of appellee himself, and only upon submission of certain requirements which appellants are not in a position to provide. 8 Id., at 38-39.
Moreover, as the Court of Appeals observed, appellee was not enthusiastic in joining the Honolulu Marathon since as early as November 6, 1985, he registered himself as participant in the 1985 Milo Marathon and actually participated therein. This even coincided with the 1985 Honolulu Marathon which petitioner failed to join.9 Id., 39. Thus, if petitioner was really desirous in joining the 1985 Honolulu Marathon, he should have made efforts to obtain the necessary documents to enable him to leave for abroad with or without the help of respondents. Instead of doing this, however, he chose to register for another event which coincided with the event in Honolulu, Hawaii. This alone showed the lack of interest on the part of petitioner to attend the competition abroad.
As to the liability of
respondent Rubberworld, the Court of Appeals found that Rubberworld already
paid the whole amount of P400,000.00 as sponsorship fee to Castro.10
Id., at 35. Thus, this will negate the responsibility
of respondent Rubberworld to petitioner since it only undertook to co-sponsor
the marathon in the amount of P400,000.00 and such obligation was fully
complied with. As to the liability of Castro, we agree with the Court of
Appeals on this point.
In fine, the responsibility of registering as a participant in the 1988 (sic) Honolulu Marathon and of obtaining the requisite travel documents is appellee's, the only commitment of appellant Castro being to provide a free round trip ticket to the top Filipino male finisher, if he participates in said marathon event. Appellee having failed to avail himself of the prize because he did not participate in the event, appellant Castro is not liable to pay him the cash equivalent of the round trip ticket. This being so, the court a quo's awards for moral and exemplary damages as well as attorney's fees are without any factual and legal support. 11 Id., at 40.
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
