You are on page 1of 2

019BoysawvInterphilPromotion

[G.R.No.L22590(148SCRA364);March20,1987]
TOPIC:Rescission
PONENTE:FERNAN,J.
FACTS:(chronologicalorder)

AUTHOR:
NOTES:(ifapplicable)

SolomonBoysawandhisthenManager,WillieKetchum,signedwithInterphilPromotions,Inc.representedbyLope
Sarreal,Sr.,acontracttoengageGabriel"Flash"Elordeinaboxingcontestforthejuniorlightweightchampionshipofthe
world.ItwasstipulatedthattheboutwouldbeheldattheRizalMemorialStadiuminManilaonSeptember30,1961or
notlaterthanthirty[30]daysthereaftershouldapostponementbemutuallyagreedupon,andthatBoysawwouldnot,prior
tothedateoftheboxingcontest,engageinanyothersuchcontestwithoutthewrittenconsentofInterphilPromotions,Inc.
However,beforeSeptember30,1961,BoysawenteredintoanontitleboutonJune19,1961andwithoutconsentfrom
Interphil,KetchumassignedtoAmadoAranetathemanagerialrightsoverBoysaw.AmadoAranetainturntransferredthe
earlier acquired managerial rights to Alfredo again without the consent from Interphil. Yulo thereafter informed
InterphilBoysawsreadinesstocomplywiththeboxingcontractofMay1,1961.TheGamesandAmusementBoardafter
aseriesofconferencesofbothpartiesscheduledtheElordeBoysawfightonNovember4,1961.Yulorefusedtoaccept
thechargeinthefightdateevenafterSarrealofferedtoadvancethefightdatetoOctober28,1961.However,hechanged
hismindanddecidedtoacceptthefightdateonNovember4,1961.WhileanElordeBoysawfightwaseventuallystaged,
thefightcontemplatedintheMay1,1961boxingcontractnevermaterialized.
Asaresult,YuloandBoysawsuedInterphilfordamagesallegedlyduetothelattersrefusaltohonortheircommitments
undertheboxingcontractofMay1,1961.
ISSUE(S): Whether or not the offending party in a reciprocal obligation may compel the other party for specific
performance?
HELD:No.
RATIO:EvidenceestablishedthatthecontractwasviolatedbyBoysaw(P)when,withouttheapprovalorconsentof
Interphil(D),hefoughtaboxingmatchinLasVegas.Anotherviolationwastheassignmentandtransferofthemanagerial
rightsoverBoysaw(P)withouttheknowledgeorconsentofInterphil(D).
Whilethecontractimposednopenaltyforsuchviolation,thisdoesnotgrantanyofthepartiestheunbridledlibertyto
breachitwithimpunity.Ourlawoncontractsrecognizestheprinciplethatactionableinjuryinheresineverycontractual
breach.
Article1170oftheCivilCodeprovidesthatthosewhointheperformanceoftheirobligationsareguiltyoffraud,
negligenceordelay,andthosewhoinanymannercontravenethetermsthereof,areliablefordamages.
Article1191oftheCivilCodestatesthatthepowertorescindobligationsisimplied,inreciprocalones,incaseoneofthe
obligorsshouldnotcomplywithwhatisincumbentuponhim.

Thecontractinquestiongaverisetoreciprocalobligations.Reciprocalobligationsarethosewhicharisefromthesame
cause,andinwhicheachpartyisadebtorandacreditoroftheother,suchthattheobligationofoneisdependentuponthe
obligationoftheother.Theyaretobeperformedsimultaneously,sothattheperformanceofoneisconditioneduponthe
simultaneousfulfillmentoftheother.

Thepowertorescindisgiventotheinjuredparty.Wheretheplaintiffisthepartywhodidnotperformtheundertaking
whichhewasboundbythetermsoftheagreementtoperform,heisnotentitledtoinsistupontheperformanceofthe
contractbythedefendant,orrecoverdamagesbyreasonofhisownbreach.

Underthelaw,whenacontractisunlawfullynovatedbyanapplicableandunilateralsubstitutionoftheobligorbyanother,
theaggrievedcreditorisnotboundtodealwiththesubstitute.However,fromtheevidence,itisclearthattheInterphil(D),
insteadofavailingthemselvesoftheoptionsgiventothembylawofrescissionorrefusaltorecognizethesubstitute
obligor,reallywantedtopostponethefightdateowingtoaninjurythatElordesustainedinarecentbout.ThatInterphil
hadjustificationtorenegotiatetheoriginalcontract,particularlythefightdateisundeniablefromthefacts.Underthe
circumstances,Interphil'sdesiretopostponethefightdatecouldneitherbeunlawfulnorunreasonable.
CASELAW/DOCTRINE:
DISSENTING/CONCURRINGOPINION(S):