SOLOMON BOYSAW and ALFREDO M. YULO, JR.

, plaintiffsappellants,
vs. INTERPHIL PROMOTIONS, INC., LOPE SARREAL, SR., and MANUEL NIETO, JR., defendantsappellees.
BOYSAW v. INTERPHIL PROMOTIONS, INC.
March 20, 1987| Fernan, J.
Reciprocal Obligations
VRV

FACTS:
 May 1, 1961: Solomon Boysaw and his manager Willie Ketchum entered into a contract with Interphil Promotions to fight Gabriel “Flash” Elorde in a boxing match
for the junior lightweight championship with the following stipulations conditions:
1. Rizal Memorial Stadium on Sept. 30, 1961, or not later than 30 days thereafter, in case of postponement.
2. Boysaw may not enter prior to his boxing fight in any other such contest without consent of Interphil PRomotions
 However:
1. June 14, 1961: Boysaw fought and defeated Louis Avila in a non-title bout t in Nevada
2. Boysaw had several changes of managers/assignment of manager rights: Ketchum  Araneta  Yulo, Jr.
3. Current manager, Yulo, refused to accept change of fight date to Oct. 28 (as Elorde was recovering from an injury from a recent bout) even if within the 30
day period.
----Yulo, Jr. agreed with Mamerto Besa, a local boxing promoter, to stage the Elorde-Boysaw boxing in Nov. 4, 1961 provided that it was promoted by Besa
(ELAM: Note – this is against Interphil/prior agreement)
4. Although an Elorde-Boysaw fight was staged, the fight in the May 1, 1961 contract with Interphil never materialized.

 Because fight as stipulated in the May 1961 contract did not materialize, Boysaw and his manager Yulo sued Interphil, and Sarreal (representative of
Interphil), and Manuel Nieto, Jr (Games and Amusement Board Chairman) for refusal to honor the commitments under the May 1, 1961 contract.
(ELAM: Boysaw is suing Interphil for refusing to honor contract, He is asking for FULFILLMENT OF obli=action for performance)
Boysaw and Yulo Interphil Promotions
CFI Rizal, QC: ruled in favor of Interphil et al. ordering Boysaw and Yulo, Jr.
to pay actual damages, moral damages, attorney’s fees, and unrealized profits to
them.
Boysaw: elevated case with SC

ISSUE:
(1) Who violated the contract for May 1961. -- Boyphil
WN Interphil et al had legal grounds to refuse to honor the May 1, 1961 boxing contract. --- YES.
(3) WN CFI was correct in the damages awarded. --- PARTIALLY CORRECT.

RULING:
Boysaw advanced: Interphil violated contract. Interphil should honor contract entered into.
Interphil Promotions averred: Boysaw did not comply, changed manager without consent of Interphil. Boysaw refused Oct 28 fight thought within time frame of one
month … It had right to cancel the contract. It’s refusal was reasonable/lawful
Court ruled (with Interphil Promotions):
1. Boysaw and his manager violated the boxing contract when he fought in Nevada with Avila without consent of Interphil. (ELAM: since nagrenege si Boysaw sa
contract, Interphil can rescind/resolve contract?)
2. Also, BOysaw violated contract when the managerial rights were transferred without consent of Interphil as such were novations of the original contract
a. Novation which consists in substituting a new debtor in the place of the original one, may be without the knowledge or against the will of the latter, but not
without the consent of the creditor as said substitution may delay or prevent fulfillment of the obligation by reason of the inability or insolvency of the new
debtor.
b. 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.
c. The letter informing Interphil about the substitution and the requests for clarification by Interphil does not mean Interphil has consented. The fact that
INterphil PromotionS were asking for clarifications mean they were not reliably informed.
3. Art. 1191: The power to rescind obligations is implied in reciprocal ones in case one of the obligors should not comply with what is incumbent upon him.
a. There is no doubt that the contract in question gave rise to reciprocal obligations.
b. Reciprocal obligations are 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 fulfillment of the other.
c. And, the power to rescind is given to the injured party.
4. Although there was no penalty imposed for such violation, this doesn’t grant any of the parties the unbridled liberty to breach it with impunity
a. Art. 1170: those guilty of fraud, negligence or delay, and who in any manner contravene the terms of the obligations are liable for damages.
(ELAM: That’s why Boysaw is liable for damages. … Here remedies are: Rescission Art 1191 + damages)

So, Interphil et al had the power not only to rescind the contract but to also recover damages from the said breach.

However, moral damages cannot be granted as said breach doesn’t fall under the cases enumerated in Art. 2219 Civil Code, and cannot be considered malicious
prosecution even if the person erroneously exercised his right to litigation. (ELAM: Parang sabi ng court walang fraud, bad faith, etc, other basis for moral
damages!!!) As said right to litigation is so precious that moral damages may not be charged on those who may exercise it erroneously.

DISPOSITION:
CFI decision affirmed except for moral damages.