GILCHRIST V CUDDY February 18, 1915 G.R. No. L-9356 C. S. GILCHRIST, plaintiff-appellee, vs. E. A.

CUDDY, ET AL., defendants. JOSE FERNANDEZ ESPEJO and MARIANO ZALDARRIAGA, appellants.

FACTS:
One Cuddy, the owner of a cinematographic film “Zigomar”, let it under a rental contract to the
plaintiff Gilchrist, the owner of a cinematograph theater in Iloilo, for a specified period of time or for a
number of days beginning May 26. In violation of the terms of this agreement, Cuddy proceeded to
turn over the film also under a rental contract, to the defendants Espejo and Zaldarriaga The
arrangement between Cuddy and the appellants for the exhibition of the film by the latter on the 26th
of May were perfected after April 26, so that the six weeks would include and extend beyond May 26.
Gilchrist thereupon restored to the Court of First Instance

DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:

1. CFI - produced an injunction restraining the defendants from exhibiting the film in question in their
theater during the period specified in the contract of Cuddy with Gilchrist

ISSUE:
Whether the injunction was properly granted; Whether Cuddy is liable for damages to Gilchrist

RULING:
Yes, although the defendants did not, at the time their contract was made, know the identity of the
plaintiff as the person holding the prior contract but did know of the existence of a contract in favor of
someone In the case at bar the only motive for the interference with the Gilchrist - Cuddy contract on
the part of the appellants was a desire to make a profit by exhibiting the film in their theater. There
was no malice beyond this desire; but this fact does not relieve them of the legal liability for interfering
with that contract and causing its breach. It is, therefore, clear, under the above authorities, that they
were liable to Gilchrist for the damages caused by their acts, unless they are relieved from such
liability by reason of the fact that they did not know at the time the identity of the original lessee
(Gilchrist) of the film.