Scribd
Upload
66 views

Comment On Decision-MR

1) The Sports Development Officer of Teresa, Rizal wrote to the Provincial Governor of Rizal to appeal a decision forfeiting Team Teresa's win in a basketball game against Team Tanay. 2) According to the letter, Team Tanay filed a protest claiming Team Teresa exceeded the number of allowed players, but did not comply with protest filing requirements. 3) The letter argues the ground rules do not provide for forfeiture in this situation and the decision was made without due process. The officer requests the decision be set aside.

Uploaded by

cheryl ann
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
66 views

Comment On Decision-MR

1) The Sports Development Officer of Teresa, Rizal wrote to the Provincial Governor of Rizal to appeal a decision forfeiting Team Teresa's win in a basketball game against Team Tanay. 2) According to the letter, Team Tanay filed a protest claiming Team Teresa exceeded the number of allowed players, but did not comply with protest filing requirements. 3) The letter argues the ground rules do not provide for forfeiture in this situation and the decision was made without due process. The officer requests the decision be set aside.

Uploaded by

cheryl ann
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 5

Republic of the Philippines

Rizal Province
MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT OF TERESA
Municipal Hall, Corazon C. Aquino Avenue, Barangay Poblacion
Teresa, Rizal 1880
[email protected]
PLDT No. (02) 8250.6800

SPORTS DEVELOPMENT OFFICE

December 12, 2022

HON. NINA RICCI A. YNARES


Provincial Governor of Rizal
Provincial Capitol
Circumferential Road cor. P. Oliveros St.
Ynares Center Complex, Antipolo City

RE: DECISION OF DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE


(INTER-TOWN LEAGUE)

Dear Governor Ynares:

This refers to the Decision rendered by the Disciplinary Committee of the Inter-town
League of the Rizal Province on the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the Teresa
Team on the forfeiture of win of Team Teresa in favor of Team Tanay. A copy of the
Decision dated December 5, 2022 is attached for your reference.

By way of background, we would like to state the following antecedent facts that led
to the forfeiture of win of Team Teresa:

a. On November 12, 2022, Team Teresa and Team Tanay had a basketball
match.
b. During the basketball game, (3 rd quarter), Team Teresa was reminded that
it had exceeded the number of players allowed to play the game. Thus,
Team Teresa, immediately removed the said player, and continued to play
the rest of the game;
c. The game ended with the final score 78 for Team Teresa and 70 for Team
Tanay;
d. On November 14, 2022, Team Tanay filed a written protest with the Office
of the Organizing Committee;
e. Team Teresa was informed informally of this protest and was waiting for
the Organizing Committee to formally furnished Team Teresa of the
protest filed by Team Tanay;
f. On November 16, 2022, the Organizing Committee rendered a Decision
forfeiting the win of Team Teresa in favor of Team Tanay. A copy of the
Decision is attached for your reference;
g. On November November 21, 2022, Team Teresa filed a Motion for
Reconsideration on the Decision of the Organizing Committee; and
h. On December 5, 2022 rendered a Decision denying the Motion for
Reconsideration.

Thus, Team Teresa is filing or writing this Comment.

Based on the Decision rendered by the Disciplinary Committee, which by the way
are the same persons who comprised the Organizing Committee, the Motion for
Reconsideration filed by Team Teresa was denied for alleged lack of merit.

Team Teresa humbly submits that the it is the Decision of the Disciplinary
Committee that lacks merit. Hence, we reiterate the grounds we have cited in our
Motion for Reconsideration, to wit:

a. There is no Protest to speak of or to be resolved, as the alleged “Protest”


failed to comply with the requirements of the Ground Rules;
b. There is nothing in the Ground Rules that provides for forfeiture of game in
cases of violation of Rule V – Bench Decorum; and
c. The Decision is rendered without due process.

DISCUSSION

THE PROTESTANT FAILED TO


COMPLY
WITH THE PROVISION OF THE
GROUND RULES RELATIVE TO
FILING OF PROTEST and THE
GROUND RULES DO NOT PROVIDE
FOR ANY SANCTION IN CASE OF
VIOLATION OF BENCH DECORUM

As the first two (2) issues are interrelated, we will discuss it jointly. We humbly
submit that there is no Protest to be resolved as the Protestant failed to comply with
the provisions of the Ground Rules relative to filing of protest. As provided in Rule X
– Protest, protest is perfected upon filing of protest complaint in writing with payment
of protest fee, and we quote:

“Protest Procedure under Rule 8, Paragraph C, shall be in


effect with a Protest Fee in the amount of Php5,000.00. Protest
is perfected upon filing of the protest complaint in writing with
payment of the protest fee not later than 72 hours after the
game in question. In case the Protest Action is resolved in
favor of the Protester, the full amount shall be refunded”.
(Italics and underlining supplied)
A perusal of the above-quoted provision of the Ground Rules clearly provides
that Protest is perfected upon the filing of protest complaint and payment of protest
fee not later than 72 hours after the game in question. A verification from the Office
of the Organizing Committee was made if they have received a formal written
complaint and payment made by the Team Tanay. There is nothing in the records of
the Organizing Committee that would show that Team Tanay paid the required
protest fee. In fact, as of the filing of this Motion for Reconsideration, no protest fee
has been paid by Team Tanay. Thus, the Protest is not perfected.

Assuming without admitting, that there is a valid protest, still the incident that
happened between Team Tanay and Team Teresa is not amongst those cited in
Rule VIII. A reading of the provisions of Rule VIII would reveal that forfeiture of win
can only be made in cases mentioned in Rule VIII (a), and we quote:

“Rule VIII. FORFEITURE AND DEFAULT

a) A team shall lose the game by forfeiture if:

o The team is not present or is unable to field five (5) players


ready to play after the fifteen (15) minutes of the game time.
o Its actions prevent the game from being played.
o It refuses to play after being instructed to do so by the
referee.
o Stages a “walk out” of the game

Clearly, what happened during the game between Team Teresa and Team
Tanay is not amongst the cases mentioned in the grounds rules that would result in
the forfeiture of win.

As regards the second issue, there is nothing in the Ground Rules that
provide that a violation of Bench Decorum will result in the forfeiture of win and
award the same to the opponent party. As clearly stated in Rule V – Bench
Decorum, “a) During an official game, each team shall consist of 15 official players
who are all entitled to play, including the captain ball”. This provision of the Ground
Rule is ambiguous. A close scrutiny of this provision would tell us that a Team can
field fifteen (15) players during a game, but there is nothing in this particular
provision of the Ground Rule that prohibit a team from fielding more than fifteen (15)
players. Further, the Ground Rules does not provide for any sanction should a team
fielded more than fifteen (15) players.

The Decision rendered by the Organizing Committee is bereft of legal basis.


As culled from the Decision, and we quote:

“ x x x the Official Result of the game shall be entered as


follows, in accordance with the rules:

Team Tanay : 20 points


Team Teresa : 0 points”
The said Decision was allegedly based on Rule VIII (b) which states that “In
case of forfeiture, the game is awarded to the opponent and the score shall be
twenty to zero (20 to 0). Furthermore, the forfeiting team shall receive zero (0) points
in the classification”. To reiterate, forfeiture of win can only be made or be the
resulting event in cases mentioned in (a) of the said Rule VIII. Again, the incident
that happened between Team Tanay and Team Teresa is not amongst those cases
mentioned in Rule VIII (a). The Team of Teresa was present and in fact played the
game and won it, its actions was not prevented by the Table Committee until the
very end, there was not an instance that Team Teresa refused to play the game after
being instructed by the referee to do so, and it did not stage a “walk out”.

THE DECISION WAS RENDERED


WITHOUT DUE PROCESS

Finally, as this a formal complaint/protest, Team Teresa is expecting that a


proper notice will be sent to it informing of the acts being complained of, and be
given an opportunity, within the period so stipulated, to answer the complaint/protest.
This is due process. The essence of due process is simply to be heard, or as applied
to administrative proceedings, as in this case, an opportunity to explain one’s side, or
an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. While
it is true that Team Teresa was given a copy of the complaint, Team Teresa,
however, was not informed of the period within which to respond to said protest.
Instead of giving Team Teresa to contest/respond to the protest filed by Team
Tanay, the Organizing Committee issued this Decision. Evidently, this is a violation
of due process.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the penalty meted out against Team Teresa
is not in accordance with the Ground Rules being implemented in this Tournament.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is hereby respectfully prayed that the


Decision dated November 16, 2022 be SET ASIDE.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

Teresa, Rizal for Antipolo City. November 22, 2022.

WINEFREDO B. MURGUIA
Sports Development Officer
Team Teresa

ATTY. CHERYL P. ANN


Municipal Administrator

You might also like