Anda di halaman 1dari 36
Chapter 7 TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS . Any third person who induces anoth- er to violate his contract shall be liable for damages to the other contracting party. Liability of third person responsible for breach of contract. The rule in Article 1314 is a rule of American law. It is also proper under the general principles of the Philippine law, be- cause a contractual right is property. (Report of the Code Com- mission, p. 135.) (1) Realepartiesininterest ina contract. — The general tule is that contract take effect only between the parties, their assigns and heirs. (Art 1311, par. 1.) This means that only the parties, their assigns and heirs can have rights and obligations under a contract. Since a contract may be violated only by the parties thereto as against each other, in an action upon the contract, the real parties in interest, either inti } ; : as plainti must parties to said contract. P Horas defendant he Therefore 2 Party who has not taken part in it cannot sue e 5 en re = formance or for cancellation thereof, unless re e has a real interest affected thereby. x _ article 1314 for Ghimgeseetee when a stranger to a contract can be sue’ It presupposes that yawarranted interference with the cont”, e contract interfered with is valid and ¥ "Unless otherwise indi ‘erwise indicated, refers to article in the Civil Cod le. ot TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH 437 att CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS third person has knowledge of the existence of the contract or must have known of it after a reasonable inquiry. (Comments and Cases on Obligations and Contracts, De Leon and De Leon, Jr, 2010 Ed., p.488.) (3) Naturemofeeliabilitys — The tort of interference with contracts may be considered a quasi-delict under Article 2176 (Chap. 6.) which may make the inducer liable to the other party for damages. It is likewise actionable under Articles 20 and 21. (Chap. 4.) (epee revemnsistmonaenisiieiiany Not all interference, however, is actionable. The fact that defendant's activity has in- jured plaintiff’s business does not mean that plaintiff necessarily is entitled to a remedy. (a) If the disturbance “falls within the area of socially acceptable conduct which the law regards as privileged,” it is damnum absque injuria. An injury may be of a kind which in a relatively free economy, a citizen is obliged to suffer, such as an injury resulting from lawful competition of which he cannot complain. (infra.) (b) If the means of competition are fair, advantage should remain where success has put it; but if acts complained of do not rest on some legitimate interest or if there is sharp dealing or over-reaching or other conduct below the behavior of fair men similarly situated, the ensuing loss should be redressed. (96 Am. Jur. 2d 281.) (©) Where the impulse behind one’s conduct lies in a Proper business interest rather than in wrongful motives, a party cannot be a malicious interferer. Where the alleged interferer is financially interested, and such interest Motivates his conduct, it cannot be said that he is an officious ° malicious intermeddler. In fine, one who is not a party to 3 contract and who interferes thereon is not reasonably an ¢.icious or malicious intermeddler. (Tayag vs. Lacson, 426 RA 282 [2004].) To, ; Mot interference distinguished from deceit. cong is tort which has come to be known as “inducing breach of “act” differs from deceit as follows: Se at 314 TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH 439 CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS duty of respecting that contractual obligation. (46 Am. Jur. 2d 280-281.) Elements of the tort. In order to maintain an act against a third person for tort of interference with a contractual relation, the following elements must be shown to be present: To induce one to breach his contract presupposes the existence of a contract. The breach must occur because of the alleged act of interference. (a) No tort is committed where at the time of interference of, for example, a contract of sale, the purchaser has already violated the terms thereof, and the seller has declared its tescission or cancellation, or the contract has expired, or the injured party has given a complete release to the other. (b) Procuring the breach of a contractis not wrongful if the contract is illegal, or contrary to public policy. For example, an action based upon the malicious inducement of a breach of contract by a client with an attorney is not maintainable Where the contract prohibits the client from settling or compromising the claim. And no relief will be granted if the contract is invalid as a result of its being a means by which an unlawful combination in restraint of brn: is ceria may, by proper means, induce non-per formance of a contract hese parpose or effect is to restrict his business °pportunities in violation of public policy. owledge of the jistence of a contract or business relationship is a condition of lability fori ithit ‘or interference with it. raitdeiith ' ie the party charged wi pa ve ch bad on fide and for his ring a breach of con! ji own legitimate interest, in ignorance of the existence of any Contract, Iti (b) It is not necessary to prove actual sae fits “Nough to show that defendant had eat foxes led to Which, if followed by reasonable inquiry, Wo"

Anda mungkin juga menyukai