You are on page 1of 1


] Boysaw vs Interphil Promotions

1. 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 shld a postponement be mutually agreed upon. Boysaw, accdg to contract, shld not engage in
other bouts prior to the contest.
2. Interphil signed Elorde to a similar agreement.
3. Boysaw fought and defeated Louis Avila in Nevada.
4. Ketchum assigned to Amado Araneta his managerial rights, who later transferred the rights to Alfredo Yulo.
5. Sarreal wrote to Games and Amusement Board (GAB) regarding this switch of managers bec they werent
6. GAB called for conferences and decided to schedule the Elorde-Boysaw bout on
7. Nov 4, 1961. USA National Boxing Assoc approved.
8. 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.
9. The fight contemplated in the May 1 contract never materialized. Boysaw and
10. Yulo sued Interphil, Sarreal and Nieto.
11. 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.
12. Boysaw and Yulo moved for a new trial, but it was denied. Hence, this appeal.
1. WON there was a violation of the May 1 contract and if so, who was guilty 2. WON there was legal ground
for postponement of the fight
3. WON lower court erred in refusing postponement of the trial for 3rd time
4. WON lower court erred in denying new trial
5. WON lower court erred in awarding appellees damages
1. Boysaw violated the contract when he fought with Avila. Civil Code provides, the power to rescind obligations is
implied, in reciprocal ones, (as in this case) in case one of the obligors shld not comply w/ what is incumbent upon
him. Another violation was made in the transfers of managerial rights. These were in fact novations which, to be valid,
must be consented to by Interphil. When a contract is unlawfully novated, the aggrieved creditor may not deal with
the substitute.
2. The appellees could have opted to rescind or refuse to recognize the new manager, but all they wanted was to
postpone the fight owing to an injury Elorde sustained. The desire to postpone the fight is lawful and reasonable.
The GAB did not act arbitrarily in acceding to the request to reset the date of the fight and Yulo himself agreed to
abide by the GAB ruling.
The appellees offered to move the fight w/in the 30 day period for postponement but this was refused by the
appellants, notwithstanding the fact that by virtue of the appellants violations, they have forfeited any right to the
enforcement of the contract.
3. The issue of denial of postponement of trial was raised in another petition for certiorari and prohibition. It cant be
resurrected in this case.
4. The court was correct in denying new trial. The alleged newly discovered evidence are merely clearances fr clerk
of court, which cant alter the result of the trial.
5. Because the appellants willfully refused to participate in the final hearing and refused to present documentary
evidence, they prevented themselves fr objecting to or presenting proof contrary to those adduced by the appellees.