G.R. No.

L-22590

SOLOMON BOYSAW and ALFREDO M. YULO, JR.​, Petitioners,

VS.
INTERPHIL PROMOTIONS, INC., LOPE SARREAL, SR., and MANUEL NIETO,
JR.​, Respondents.

Articles 1170, 1191, 1293. Performance with Fraud Negligence, etc.; Power to Rescind
Obligations; Novation

March 20, 1987

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The case is an appeal by Solomon Boysaw and Alfred Yulo Jr. from CFI ordering
them to pay Manuel Nieto Jr. P20k-moral damages, P5k-atty’s fees,; and to Interphil
Promotions, Inc. and Lope Sarreal Sr.(additional P20k for moral damages),
P250k-unrealized profits, P33,369.72-actual damages, P5k-atty’s fees and costs.

Boysaw and his then Manager, Ketchum, signed with Interphil Promotions, Inc.
represented by Sarreal, Sr., a contract to engage Gabriel "Flash" Elorde in a boxing
contest for the junior lightweight championship of the world. The stipulations of the
contract were the venue in the Rizal Memorial stadium on Sept. 30-61. Incase of
mutually-agreed postponement, it would be no more than 30 days later. And that
Boysaw would not prior to the match, engage in any other such contest without the
written consent of Interphil.

Boysaw on June 9-61 fought Louis Avila in a ten-round non-title bout held in Las
Vegas. On July2-61, he changed his manager to J. Amado Araneta who eventually
assigned managerial rights to Yulo. Latter informed Sarreal of the managerial changes
and readiness to comply with the contract. On the same day, Sarreal wrote to the
Games and Amusement Board(GAB) of the lack of formal notification of the managerial
rights switching and that Boysaw be called for clarification. There were series of
postponement of the fight schedule. Boysaw-Elorde fight did push through but it wasn’t
the contemplated fight in the contract.
 Boysaw and Yulo petitioned CFI Rizal against Sarreal, Interphil and Manuel Nieto
Jr. (GABchairman, resps claim to have acted arbitrarily) damages for non-fulfillment of
contract commitments.

ISSUE/S:

Whether or not there was a violation of the contract stipulations, and who was
liable?

CONCLUSION:

Yes, Yulo admitted the fact of Boysaw and Avila’s fight in Las Vegas and the
assignment of the managerial rights over Boysaw to different people (novation) without
Prior approval of Interphil. Even if Yulo sent a letter, there is no showing that Interphil
acceded to the substitution judging from the complaint in GAB. Our law recognizes
actionable in every contract breach. Art.1170 ”those who in the performance of their
obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence or delay, and those who in any manner
contravene the terms thereof, are liable for damages. ”Art1191 ”the power to rescind
obligation is implied, in reciprocal ones, in case one of the obligors shouldnot comply
with what is incumbent upon him.” Novation which consists in substituting a new debtor
in the place of the original one may be made even without the knowledge or against the
will of the latter, BUT NOT WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE CREDITOR.”
Substitution needs the consent of the creditor because the new debtor may cause delay
or prevent the fulfillment of the obligation due to insolvency or inability. Since the
creditor is at risk, then his consent must first be secured to be binding.

Thus, except for the award of moral damages which was deleted, the decision of
the lower court was affirmed.