Boysaw, et. al. vs. Interphil Promotions, et. al., G.R. No. 22590, March 20, 1989
Subject: Obligations and Contracts
FACTS
On May 1, 1961, Boysaw and
manager Ketchum signed with Interphil (represented by Sarreal) a contract to
engage Flash Elorde in a boxing match at Rizal Memorial Stadium on Sept 30,
1961 or not later than 30 days should a postponement be mutually agreed upon.
Boysaw, according to contract, should not engage in other bouts prior to the
contest. Interphil signed Elorde to a similar agreement. Boysaw
fought and defeated Louis Avila in Nevada.
Ketchum assigned to Amado Araneta his managerial rights, who later transferred
the rights to Alfredo Yulo. Sarreal wrote to Games and Amusement Board
(GAB) regarding this switch of managers because they weren’t notified. GAB
called for conferences and decided to schedule the Elorde-Boysaw bout on
On Nov 4, 1961, USA National Boxing Assoc approved. Sarreal offered to
move the fight to Oct 28 for it to be w/in the 30 day allowable postponement in
the contract. Yulo refused. He was willing to approve the fight on Nov 4
provided it will be promoted by a certain Mamerto Besa. The fight contemplated
in the May 1 contract never materialized. Boysaw and Yulo sued Interphil,
Sarreal and Nieto.
Boysaw was abroad when he was
scheduled to take the witness stand. Lower court reset the trial. Boysaw was
still absent on the later date. Court reset. On the third instance, a motion
for postponement was denied. Boysaw and Yulo moved for a new trial, but it was
denied. Hence, this appeal.
ISSUE
Whether or not the offending party in a reciprocal
obligation may compel the other party for specific performance.
RULING
No.
Under the law, 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.
The evidence established that
the contract was violated by appellant Boysaw himself when, without the
approval or consent of Interphil, he fought Louis Avila on June 19, 1961 in Las
Vegas Nevada. Another violation of the contract in question was the assignment
and transfer, first to J. Amado Araneta, and subsequently, to appellant Yulo,
Jr., of the managerial rights over Boysaw without the knowledge or consent of
Interphil. However, it is clear that the appellees, instead of availing
themselves of the options given to them by law of rescission or refusal to
recognize the substitute obligor Yulo, really wanted to postpone the fight date
owing to an injury that Elorde sustained in a recent bout. That the appellees
had the justification to renegotiate the original contract, particularly the fight
date is undeniable from the facts aforestated. Under the circumstances, the
appellees' desire to postpone the fight date could neither be unlawful nor
unreasonable.
No comments:
Post a Comment