Boysaw v Interphil Promotions, Inc. | 1987 | Fernan, J.

Facts:

1.

On May 1, 1961, Solomon Boysaw, and his then Manager Willie Ketchum, signed a contract to fight Gabriel Flash Elorde in boxing with Interphil Promotions, Inc. represented by Lope Sarreal, Sr. for the lightweight championship of the world;

10. When the trial proceeded, when defendants counsel was about to present their case, plaintiffs counsel took no further part in the proceedings; after the trial court rendered judgment, plaintiffs moved for a new trial, the motion was denied, hence direct appeal to SC by reason of the amount involved; Issues: 1. Was there a violation in the contract? If yes, who and how? Was the postponement from September 1 to November 4 legal? Was the denial of new trial valid?

2.

The agreement was that the bout would be held at Rizal Memorial Stadium in Manila on September 30, 1961 or not later than 30 days thereafter should a postponement be mutually agreed upon; and that Boysaw would not fight anyone without the consent of Interphil prior to the date of the bout; 2.

3.

3.

On June 19, 1961, Boysaw fought and defeated Louis Avila; Later, Boysaw had two manager changes; From Willie Ketchum to Amado Araneta, then from the latter to Alfredo Yulo, Jr.;

Held and Ratio: 1. Yes.

a. i.

Boysaw himself violated the contract when he

4.

On September 5, 1961, Yulo informed Sarreal over his acquisition of managerial rights over Boysaw and indicating his and Boysaws readiness to comply with the May 1 contract; on the same day, Sarreal wrote to the Games Amusement Board (GAB) expressing concern of the switch of the managers, which he wasnt formally notified, and requesting Boysaw for clarifications; GAB called for conferences of the parties leading to a decision to schedule the Elorde-Boysaw to November 4, 1961, which was approved by the USA National Boxing Association;

fought Louis Avila: The contract imposed no penalty for

such violation but it does not any of the parties unbridled liberty to breach it with impunity; Art 1170 applies;

ii.

The contract gave rise to a reciprocal

5.

6.

However, Yulo refused to accept the date change even after Sarreal offered it to be moved to October 28, 1961 which was within the 30 day period allowable postponement in the May 1 contract; Early in October 1961, Yulo communicated with Mamerto Besa, a local boxing operator; He informed Besa that he would approve the November 4 bout if Besa was the promoter; While the Elorde-Boysaw fight was eventually staged, the fight contemplated in the May 1 contract never materialized; As a result, Boysaw and Yulo sued Interphil, Sarreal and Nieto Jr. (GAB Chairman) for damages by the refusal of InterPhil and Sarreal aided and abetted by Nieto to honour the May 1 contract;

obligation those which arise from the same cause, and in which each party is a debtor and a creditor of the other, such that the obligation of one is dependent upon the obligation of the other. They are to be performed simultaneously, so that the performance of one is conditioned upon the simultaneous fulfilment of the other. (Tolentino); iii. There is implied power to rescind in reciprocal obligations; The power to rescind is given to the injured party; b. Another violation was the switching of managers; i. The assignment of managers were in fact novations which, to be valid, should have been consented to by Interphil;

7.

8.

ii.

Novation which consists in

9.

The case dragged into 1963 when Boysaw left the country without informing the court and, as alleged, his counsel; His counsel moved for postponements since when the time came when Boysaw was to take the witness stand, he was still abroad; Boysaw eventually failed to appear and the plaintiffs case was deemed submitted on the evidence thus far presented;

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 (Art 1293 CC);

iii.

There was no showing that Interphil

acceded to the substitution by Yulo of the principal obligor who is Ketchum; Interphil, not

Ken Molave D 2015

being reliably informed, cannot be deemed to have consented to such changes; iv. When a contract is unlawfully novated by an applicable and unilateral substitution of the obligor by another, the aggrieved creditor is not bound to deal with the substitute; 2. Yes. a. Interphil, instead of availing the option of rescission or refusal to accept Yulo as substitute obligor, really wanted to postpone the fight date owing to an injury that Elorde sustained in a recent bout b. The facts stated justified the renegotiation of the contract;

c.

Also, since all the rights on the matter rested

with the appellees and appellants claims to the enforcement of the contract hung entirely on the enforcement of the contract hung entirely upon the formers pleasure and sufferance, the GAB did not arbitrarily accede to appellees request to reset the fight date to November 4, 1961. It must be noted that Yulo had agreed to abide by the GAB ruling; 3. Yes. Appellant contends that it has newly discovered evidence that, if admitted, would have changed the results of the case; Court rejects; a. The newly discovered evidence consists merely of clearances which Boysaw secured from the clerk of court prior to his departure abroad; such evidence cannot alter, even if admitted, the result of the case; b. Appellants argue that if the clearances were admitted to support the motion for new trial, the lower court would have allowed postpone of the trial, it being convince that Boysaw did not leave without notice to the court or to his counsel; Boysaws testimony would have altered the results; c. Court rejects this and upheld the trial courts reasoning which says that the newly discovered evidence contemplated in Rule 37 of the RoC is such kind which has reference to the merits of the case; d. The testimony of Boysaw cannot be considered newly discovered evidence for such evidence has been in existence waiting only to be elicited from him by questioning; JUDGMENT: CFI affirmed, except with the moral damages which was removed.

Ken Molave D 2015