CHERRY ANN MANIPOL,

Complainant,

-versus- GAB CASE No. 13-19

ANGELITO MERIN
Respondent.
x-----------------------------------x

DECISION
Nature of the Case

Before the Board is the complaint of professional boxing manager

CHERRY ANN MANIPOLrequesting that professional boxer ANGELITO
MERINwho is under her management be conditionally released from their
Boxer-Manager Contract (BMC) and likewise request for arbitration pursuant
to Paragraph 8 (Arbitration Clause) thereof and Article 10 of the Rules and
Regulations Governing Professional Boxing in the Philippines.

The Parties

Complainant is a GAB-licensed professional boxing manager from Imus,

Cavite with License No. BM-16-012-ZCwhich expires on August 24, 2020.She
was first issued her GAB license on 2016. Respondent is a GAB-licensed
professional boxer fromMuntinlupa Citywith License No. PB-11026 which
expires on December 31, 2019. He debuted as a professional boxer on March
12, 2011 and since then has participated in twenty-two (22) professional fights
with a record of nine (9) wins, ten (10) losses and three (3) draws.

Theparties are signatories to the Management Agreement dated March

12, 2018 governing their boxer-manager relationship for the ensuing four (4)
years therefrom. The said agreement was registered with and approved by the
Board.

The Proceedings

On May 20, 2019, complainant filed with the Board the subject
complaint-letter, requesting for arbitration in relation to professional boxer
AngelitoMerin and likewise request that the latter be conditionally released
fromtheir Management Agreement due to third-party intervention and
irreconcilable circumstances.

In an Order dated May 20, 2019, the case was set for aclarificatory
conference on May 28, 2019. However, it was cancelled and reset to June 10,
2019. In the clarificatory conference, complainant Cherry Ann Manipol, with
companion Juan T. Luckeyand respondentAngelitoMerinappeared.The
respondent submitted his Answer to the complaint. The parties, however did
not arrive at an amicable settlement.

There being no possibility of compromise agreement despite efforts of the

Board, the complainant is given fifteen (15) days within which to submit her
reply, copy furnished the respondent, who is given the same period from
receipt within which to submit his rejoinder, after which the case shall be
considered submitted for resolution.

The Allegations of the Parties

In her submissions, complainant alleges that the respondent caused

serious, irreversible damage to her stable and reputation due to the
respondent’s repeated breach of their Management Agreement wherein Merin
participated in a boxing bout without first having obtained the consent of the
complainant.

As a consequence thereof, the complainant stated that she will release

him from their Management Agreement on the condition that the manager’s
share of the purseis thirty percent (30%) for a period of two (2) years
duringwhich the respondent will be allowed to fight in a freelancer capacity
and thereafter hewill be released from the said Management Agreement.

In his answer, the respondent narrated instances wherein he alleged

that the complainant did not fully supported him in his boxing bouts and as a
result thereof, he himself arranges and secures his own fight. Further,
therespondent averred that the complainant’s husband, Juan T.Luckey was
the one who acts as a manager to the herein respondent.

The Issue

The case revolves around the alleged non-performance by the parties of

their obligations in the contract and whether the said non-performance is
enough ground for this Board to grant the conditional release of the
respondent as prayed for by the complainant.

The Management Agreement states the duties of the Contestant

(Respondent) and the Manager (Complainant), as follows:
 3. Duties of contestant. Contestant will use his or her best skill and
ability, at such times and places as may be required by Manager.
Contestant agrees to place himself or herself under the management
of Manager, and, also agrees to take part in such cities, towns and
other places, without limitation, where Manager may from time to
time request or direct. Contestant binds himself or herself and agrees
to faithfully fulfill, and live up to any agreement entered into on his or
her behalf by the Manager, during the term of this agreement.
Contestant agrees that that he or she shall not, during the
continuance of this agreement, take part in any contests or
exhibitions of unarmed combatant, or not or perform or otherwise
exercise Contestant’s talent in any manner, or place, how or
whatsoever, without havefirst obtained the written permission shall
require, and shall proceed and travel, by any means of conveyance
as when required by Manager for the purpose of this agreement.

4.Duties of Manager. Manager binds themselves and agrees to use

their best efforts to secure remunerative contests and exhibitions of
unarmed combat for Contestant.

The Board’s Findings

The Board is not inclined to grant the conditional release of the

respondent as prayed for by the complainant on account of non-performance
of their contractual obligations in their Management Agreement.

Based on the records of this Office, respondent has fought eight (8)
professional boxing matches since signing up with the complainant on March
12, 2018. Complainant averred that she secured a fight for the respondent in
their Butuan promotion on April 28, 2018, in which the respondent
acknowledges but with reservation that the complainant’s husband, Juan
Luckey was the one who manages them and not the complainant.

Complainant alleged that the respondent breached their contract

specifically on July 19, 2018 in Bohol and on September 9, 2018 in Cotabato,
arguing that she did not give her consent to the said fights.

In his submission, respondent averred that on his July 19, 2018 fight,
complainant’s husband Juan Luckey received 30% of the purse and alleged
that he did not receive any support from the complainant.

On September 9, 2018 boxing fight, the respondent admitted that

Bernard Yu was the one who secured this fight and he allegedly seek financial
supportfromJuan Luckey which the latter replied in the negative.

Subsequently, respondent’s next fight was on December 23, 2018 in

Butuan City in which the respondent acknowledges that it was Juan
Luckey’sKO Warrior Stable thatsecured this fight.
 Respondent’s fight on March 19, 2019 was against Roy Nagulman in
which the respondent alleged that Juan Luckey did not give him an advanced
money for his fare for the said fight. The rest of the respondent’s narration
rested on his travel to Cavite when Juan Luckey offered him to train on AF
Gym in Silang Cavitewherein the respondent stated that he asked Juan
Luckey to release him from their contract.

Consequently, the complainant filed her letter-complainant on May

20,2019. The complainant averred that she has no contractual obligations to
provide financiallyto the herein respondent who constantly demands money
from her but nevertheless she provided him with training allowances on
several occasions, attaching herewith money receiptsshe sent to the
respondent. The complainant reiterated that there was never any written
authority from her to allow the respondent to participate in the above
mentioned fights.

The complainant’s allegations failed to muster merit. The complainant

failed to prove her allegations by substantial evidence that the respondent did
not seek her permission to the said boxing bouts, thus the request to release
the respondent conditionally is unjustified.

The standard of substantial evidence is satisfied when there is

reasonable ground to believe, based on the evidence submitted, that the
respondent breached their contract. In the respondent’s answer, the
respondent categorically mentionsJuan Luckey in his every bout, primarily
seeking support from his fights in which the complainant did not specifically
deny in her submissions.

Furthermore, the act of the complainant to the herein respondent is

aggravated by the fact that based on her admissions, the
complainant’shusband ,Juan Luckey handled all ofMerin’smanagement
responsibilities. It should be noted that one’s license as a professional boxing
manager is personal to the licensee and said license cannot be transferred or
performed by third persons. To the Board’s mind, the complainant
misrepresented her duties and obligations as a manager when she transferred
all of it to her husband, Juan Luckey.

Any claim of delay or non-performance against the other could prosper

only if the complaining party had faithfully complied with its correlative
obligation. In reciprocal obligations, before a party can demand the
performance of the obligation of the other, the former must also perform its
own obligation.
 WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the request of CHERRY ANN
MANIPOL to the conditional release of ANGELITO MERIN is hereby DENIED
for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Makati City, Philippines, this 27thday of July 2020.

ABRAHAM KAHLIL B. MITRA

Chairman

EDUARD B. TRINIDAD MARIO I. MASANGUID

Commissioner Commissioner

A contract of adhesion is defined as one in which one of the

parties imposes a ready-made form of contract, which the other
party may accept or reject, but which the latter cannot modify. One
party prepares the stipulation in the contract, while the other party
merely affixes his signature or his adhesion thereto, giving no room
for negotiation and depriving the latter of the opportunity to
bargain on equal footing. Such contracts are called contracts of
adhesion, because the only participation of the party is the affixing
of his signature or his “adhesion” thereto.
Contracts of adhesion are not void per se. These types of
contracts have been declared as binding as ordinary contract, the
reason being that the party who adheres to the contract is free to
reject it entirely. If the terms thereof are accepted without
objection, then the contract serves as the law between them
ejkebgfejbfjgbwegb