GREGORIO MIGUEL, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. VICENTE TOSE, BASILIO NAVARRO, AND MARCIANO HERNANDEZ, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga
reversing a verdict of the referee in a cockfight.

The combined bets on both cocks were P860.00, which amount is on deposit
awaiting the outcome of the suit Complaint was first filed with the municipal
court but it was dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction by reason of
the amount involved. Thereafter action was instituted in the Court of First
Instance.

In the latter court a motion to dismiss was presented, alleging lack of
jurisdiction but on different grounds. It is because a question of jurisdiction
is raised that the case has been certified to this court by a division of the
Court of Appeals.

First, it is said that the referee’s decisions in cockfights such as that
here in question are appealable only to the justice of the peace, whose
decision, it is contended, is final, according to articles 76 and 77 of the
Spanish Royal Decree known as “Reglamentos Sobre Galleras”.

The foregoing Royal Decree, in our opinion, has been repealed in so far as it
is in conflict with existing laws. Section 57 of Act No. 136 provides that
“Courts of first instance shall have appellate jurisdiction over all cases
arising in justices’ and inferior courts in their respective provinces”. This is
the law applicable to the case at bar. It makes all justices of the peace’s
decisions appealable, clearly indicating an intention of the legislature to
abrogate previous laws relative to the periods within which appeal from inferior
courts should be perfected.

The provision of the same Royal Decree which confers jurisdiction on the
justice of the peace regardless, it seems, of the amount litigated, must be
considered repealed also. The present jurisdiction of the courts is fixed by Act
No. 136, section 56 of which, as amended by Act No. 400, provides that “In all
cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest, or the value of the property
in controversy, amounts to P600 or more shall be under the exclusive
jurisdiction of the court of first instance.” And in cases where the value of
the subject matter or the amount of the demand is P200 or more but is less than
P600, the court of first instance has jurisdiction concurrent with the justice
of the peace. (Section 68, Act No. 136, as amended by Act No. 3881.) Covering as
it does the entire subject of jurisdiction, this Act must be held to have
replaced the old laws on the matter. It follows that, whether we take the bet on
each cock or the combined bets as the measure of the demand, the court of first
instance had jurisdiction of the present litigation, concurrent with the
municipal court in the first case, exclusive in the second.

Article 80 of the “Reglamentos Sobre Galleras” which stipulates that action
contesting the decision of the referee shall be brought within three days from
the date the decision was made, must be considered superseded also under the
same principle. The subject of prescription4 of actions is now governed by
sections 38 et seq. of Act No. 190 which outline the limitations of actions in
all cases. Under this statute of limitations the present suit prescribes in six
years.

On the merits of the controversy the parties agree that after several clashes
the defendants rooster was mortally wounded and the plaintiff’s was unscathed.
In all other particulars they sustain conflicting theories. The trial judge made
no definite finding of what, in his opinion, happened. His statement of the
evidence and conclusion are thus stated in this paragraph:

“It was admitted by the witnesses for the defendants that there had been
several encounters between the two roosters, and as a consequence thereof
‘Malatuba’ (defendants’ cock) was seriously wounded and on the contrary*
‘Mayahin,’ (plaintiff’s cock) was never wounded. The mere fact that ‘Mayahin’
walked away when the referee raised ‘Malatuba’ and proclaimed it the winner did
not mean that the former was defeated. There are instances in cockfighting when
the rooster which is seriously wounded than the other Jiad been proclaimed the
winner by the referee. But in this particular fight, the preponderance of
evidence shows that the rooster, ‘Mayahin’, should have been proclaimed by the
referee as the winner.”

Articles 57 and 59 of the above mentioned Royal Decree read:

“ART. 57.—Siempre que uno de los gallos sin embestir al otro, huya, aunque no
vicee, se dará por terminada la soltada.

“ART. 59.—Estando los dos gallos frente a frente despues de alguna lid, si el
uno abandone su ademán hostil y deja al contrario dándole la cola, aunque marche
a paso lento, se declarará haber perdido la pelea.”

We believe these provisions are still in force, not being inconsistent with
present enactments. Even if it were otherwise, they still are the criterion by
which, by custom and convention, the result of a contest is judged and
participants in the game abide. The referee said he was guided by them in
refereeing cockfights. In fact the plaintiff-appellee does not seem to impugn
the force of these provisions as a law, or as rules observed and applied by
common consent. He raises an issue of fact only.

The substance of the plaintiff’s evidence is that the defendants’ cock was
dead when it landed after one of the clashes in the air and that his cock was
about three feet from its dead adversary when the latter was picked up by the
referee as a token of victory. He and his witnesses denied that the plaintiff’s
cock was running or walking away.

On the other hand, the defendants and their witnesses declared that the
“malatuba”, although fatally wounded, was still on its feet when it was raised
by the referee, and that it was raised when the “mayahin” moved away with its
crest standing.

The evidence for the plaintiff is incoherent and vague in some respects and
corroborative of the defendants’ evidence in others. For example, the plaintiff
stated in his examination in chief that when the referee picked up the
defendants’ cock, his (plaintiff’s) own was retroceding. On cross-examination he
stated that his cock stepped back about two or three feet. To the next question,
whether his cock moved back with its tail to the other cock, he gave this
unresponsive and incongruous answer: “Si, senor, per-siguió a su contrario.” To
other questions his answers were no less evasive and ambiguous.

“P. Quiere Vd. decir de que con aquel dos pies de distancia su gallo aun
persiguio a su enemigo o adversario el Malatuba?—R. Ya no tuvo tiempo mi gallo
de persiguir a bu contrario porque el sentenciador ya habia alzado al gallo
Malatuba.

*       *        *        *        *        *        *
       *

P. Vd. dijo en las preguntas directas de que su gallo retrocedió, que quiere
Vd. dar de entender con esa frase de “retrocedió”?— R. Antes de soltar yo a mi
gallo yo llame la atencion del sentenciador de que mi gallo es on poco arisco y
de tener un poco de cuidado, y cuando mi gallo pego al gallo Malatuba dejàndole
casi muerto, entonces vi al sentenciador aproximar para coger el gallo Malatuba,
y mi gallo se echó a correr.”

Still later on he testified:

“R. La acción de Marciano Hernández no se si con el objeto de alzar al gallo
de pelo Malatuba o al gallo mio Mayahin, pero mi gallo se retiro y al retirar mi
gallo el saco al pelo de gallo Malatuba y declaró por ganador.”

But obscure as it is, the foregoing testimony does not hide the plaintiff’s
explicit admission that his cock fled from the fight. And his insinuation that
his cock was wild, an insinuation calculated to make the court believe that the
“mayahin” was wont to avoid people, only confirms the admission that it ran off,
although the implication is that it did, not for fear of the other rooster but
because it saw the referee approach, when the latter walked towards the cocks to
give his verdict.

The plaintiff said in other parts of his testimony that the defendants’
rooster was dead when it was awarded the fight. Other witnesses for the
plaintiff said the same thing. Yet when asked how he knew the defendants’ cock
was dead when the referee picked it up, the plaintiff stated, ‘Torque estaba
reclinado el cuello.” This answer carries its own refutation. A dead cock does
not merely bend or slouch its head; its body is sprawled either on its side or
back.

Again the plaintiff and his witnesses declared that the former shouted
“careo”, which was a request, customary in cockfighting, that the two birds be
put face to face. This statement seems inconsistent with the statement that the
defendants’ cock was dead. If one of the cocks were dead, no fair test of the
relative fighting attitude of the two rooster could be had. All that remained in
such case for the loser to do would have been to protest the verdict. For this
reason we are reluctant to accept the testimony that the plaintiff or any other
spectator demanded that the two roosters be confronted with each other.

The evidence for the defendants is, we believe, more worthy of credence. It
is free from serious, if any, contradictions or ambiguities and is more
coherent, logical and straightforward. Besides, two witnesses, at least, are
more disinterested, although it is charged that they had a wager on the
defendants’ cock, a charge which was vehemently denied by the persons concerned.

Mariano Hernandez, the referee, testified to the effect that after the last
of their several grapples the two cocks found themselves facing each other and
the “mayahin” lied away with fright. It was at that moment, he said, that he
raised the defendants’ cock as the winner. The plaintiff’s cock, he added, was
then about five or six meters from the other. He admitted that the “malatuba”
was very seriously wounded but said that it was on its feet, still maintaining a
hostile posture, when the “mayahin” turned tail.

This witness’ statements carry the presumption of accuracy that goes with an
official decision. It is entitled, as a matter of policy, to the benefit of any
doubt. The referee’s decision must be accorded a large degree of respect, if
cockfights are to be kept on a high plain as a sport or legalized evil. Such
respect is essential to the orderly conduct of the game.

Suki Singhoe, a municipal policeman, said that he was at the cockpit to
maintain order; that after the two cocks had come to grips the referee raised
the “malatuba”, and he saw the “mayahin” run away for cowardice, or “as we say,
con el copete en alto.” The “malatuba” was gravely wounded when the “mayahin”
quit, he added.

Our opinion is that the judgment of the lower court should be reversed and
one should be entered in favor of the defendants-appellants, with costs against
the plaintiff-appellee. It is so ordered.

Feria, Pablo, and
Bengzon, JJ., concur.

---

CONCURRING

PERFECTO, J.:

The concept and feeling of justice are so deeprooted in human nature that
even in the lowest and most shameful forms and manifestations of social
activity, such as gambling and vice, men recur to tribunals to settle their
conflicts. This case offers a striking example. Although it may appear
undignified, in the opinion of many respectable persons, that the highest
tribunal of this Republic should accord all the legal formalities and
solemnities in the consideration and decision of gamblers’ disagreement on a bet
in a cockfight, official duty does not offer us another alternative, no matter
how distasteful the task may be.

We cannot choose the nature of the litigations which we have to take
cognizance of. It is the nature, character, quality, cultural stage, of our
social body which determine the kind of legal conflicts we are called upon to
settle. No matter how it may hurt our national pride, there is no way of evading
the bitter truth: in our midst there are unmistakable manifestations of cultural
and moral backwardness. One of them, the official toleration and even express
legalization of some generalized vice and forms of gambling, such as
cockfighting, horse racing, prizefighting, Jai-Alai, hypocritically called
sports by their votaries.

Such forms of vice and gambling are regulated by express provisions of law,
such as the Spanish Royal Decree about cockfighting which, as stated in the
decision penned by Mr. Justice Tuason, continues to be in effect.

Evidently, all the preachings of Rizal against cock-fighting, due to its evil
and demoralizing effects, have been in vain. More than half a century has
elapsed since his death. We have enshrined his hallowed memory as our number one
hero and as one of the greatest moral figures of humanity. We have been making
vociferous avowals of adherence to the lofty ideals and doctrines he bequeathed
us through his immortal writings and the noble example of his life. But the
sanguinary gambling continues unabated and the sordid greed of the gamblers is
shamefacedly brought to the temples of justice, in a litigation about money
besmirched with rooster’s blood.

While applying the law in this case, placed as we are in one of the highest
forums of our nation and in a position of national leadership, we feel it our
duty to state that it is about time to marshal all the moral forces in all
sectors of the country so as to emancipate our people from the degrading
shackles of legalized gambling. As it will be a long way for our country to
reach the acme of material progress, let us find compensation in striving to be
always in the forefront on all matters of permanent cultural value, on all
things that would develop, enhance and elevate the noblest qualities and the
dignity of a human being.

We concur in the decision.