Arcaina, Colene

Boysaw v Interphil

March 20, 1987

Fernan, J.
Petition: appeal from July 25, 1963 decision of the CFI of Rizal which ordered them to jointly and severally pay
defendants-appellee Nieto, Jr., a total sum of P25,000 and defendants-appellees Interphil and Sarreal a sum of P250,
000 as unrealized profits plus P33, 369.72 as actual damages plus other fees including the attorneys fees as well as
moral damages

Parties:
Solomon Boysaw and Alfredo Yulo - plaintiffs-appellants
Interphil Promotions, Inc., Lope Sarreal, Sr., and Manuel Nieto, Jr. - defendants-appellees

Facts:

On May 1, 1961, Solomon Boysaw and his manager Willie Ketchum entered into a contract with Interphil Promotions
Inc., through Lope Sarreal, Sr., to engage Gabriel Flash Elorde in a boxing match for the junior lightweight
championship of the world. According to the contract, the match was supposed to take place on September 30, 1961 or
not later than 30 days thereafter. It was also stipulated that Boysaw was not allowed to engage in another boxing contest
without consent of Interphil but on June 19, 1961, Boysaw fought in a non-title bout in Las Vegas, Nevada against a
Louis Avila. Willie Ketchum later on assigned his managerial rights over Boysaw to J. Amado Araneta, who re-assigned
these rights to Alfredo Yulo. After Boysaw informed Sarreal about his arrival in the Philippines on September 2, Yulo
wrote to Interphil regarding their readiness to comply with the May 1 contract regarding the Boysaw-Elorde match.
However, Interphil, through Sarreal, wrote to Games and Amusements Board (GAB) expressing concerns that there had
been a switch in managers and Interphil was not duly notified. The GAB called a series of conferences of the parties and
they concluded that the fight be scheduled on November 4, 1961 but Yulo refused to accept this as this was not the one
agreed upon during the May 1 contract. He also refused despite the offering of Interphil to advance the fight to October
28, which was still within the 30-day period provided for in the contract. Early in October, 1961, Yulo contacted a
certain Mamerto Besa, a local boxing promoter for a promotion regarding the Boysaw-Elorde match. Yulo agreed to a
November 4 schedule for the match provided that Besa would promote the same. The fight was eventually staged, but
the fight contemplated in the May 1 contract was never materialized. Hence, Boysaw and Yulo sued Interphil, Sarreal,
and GAB Chairman Nieto, Jr. for damages as to the refusal of the party to commit to the stipulations of the May 1
contract. The case was prolonged until 1963 where a series of motions have been filed and delay ensued due to Boysaws
partys failure to present documentary evidence when they had no more witnesses to present.

Issue:
1. Whether there was a violation of the May 1, 1961 fight contract and if there was, who was guilty of such violation
2. Whether there was legal ground for the postponement of the fight to November 4, 1961

Ruling: WHEREFORE, except for the award of moral damages which is herein deleted, the decision of the lower
court is hereby affirmed.
1. Yes. There was a violation of the May 1 fight contract. In fact, the plaintiffs-appellants Boysaw and Yulo, Jr., were the
first ones who violated the same when Boysaw fought Avila in June 1961, a fight which Interphil did not know about,
when it was stipulated that Boysaw cannot enter into any other match prior the match with Elorde without Interphils
written consent. According to Article 1170 of the NCC, Those who in the performance of their obligations are guilty of
fraud, negligence, or delay, or those in any manner contravene the terms thereof, are liable for damages. Boysaw and
Yulo are definitely liable for damages when they contravened the terms of the obligations through the terms stipulated in
the May 1 contract. Another contravention committed by the parties was the reassignment of managerial rights without
knowledge and consent of Interphil. As what can be observed, this assignment of managerial right constitutes novation and
the creditor must have the knowledge regarding this and the debtor must ask for the creditors consent. Otherwise, as the
case may be it is said that: 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.
2. Yes. There is a legal ground for the postponement. The violations of the terms of the original contract by appellants vested
the appellees the right to rescind and repudiate such contract altogether.