Scribd
Upload
128 views1 page

BOYSAW vs. Interphil - Digest

Solomon Boysaw and his manager signed a contract with Interphil Promotions to have a boxing match against Gabriel Flores on September 32, 1961. However, Boysaw fought another boxer in June 1961 without Interphil's consent, violating the contract. He also transferred his managerial rights to another manager without Interphil's consent. As a result, the planned fight did not materialize. Boysaw and his new manager then sued Interphil for damages. The court found that Boysaw violated the contract first, giving Interphil the right to rescind its obligations. Reciprocal obligations allow either party to rescind if the other does not comply. While Interphil sought to adjust the date, it was entitled to rescind the

Uploaded by

Mirabel Vidal
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
128 views1 page

BOYSAW vs. Interphil - Digest

Solomon Boysaw and his manager signed a contract with Interphil Promotions to have a boxing match against Gabriel Flores on September 32, 1961. However, Boysaw fought another boxer in June 1961 without Interphil's consent, violating the contract. He also transferred his managerial rights to another manager without Interphil's consent. As a result, the planned fight did not materialize. Boysaw and his new manager then sued Interphil for damages. The court found that Boysaw violated the contract first, giving Interphil the right to rescind its obligations. Reciprocal obligations allow either party to rescind if the other does not comply. While Interphil sought to adjust the date, it was entitled to rescind the

Uploaded by

Mirabel Vidal
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

BOYSAW VS.

INTERPHIL PROMOTIONS 148 SCRA 635

FACTS: Solomon Boysaw and his then Manager !illie "et#h$m signed with %nter&hil 'romotions %n#( re&resented )y *o&e Sarreal Sr( a #ontra#t to engage +a)riel ,Flash, -lorde in a )o.ing #ontest /or the 0$nior lightweight #ham&ionshi& o/ the world( %t was sti&$lated that the )o$t wo$ld )e held at the Ri1al Memorial Stadi$m in Manila on Se&tem)er 32 1361 or not later than thirty 4325 days therea/ter sho$ld a &ost&onement )e m$t$ally agreed $&on and that Boysaw wo$ld not &rior to the date o/ the )o.ing #ontest engage in any other s$#h #ontest witho$t the written #onsent o/ %nter&hil 'romotions %n#( 6owe7er )e/ore Se&tem)er 32 1361 Boysaw entered into a non8title )o$t on 9$ne 13 1361 and witho$t #onsent /rom %nter&hil "et#h$m assigned to Amado Araneta the managerial rights o7er Boysaw( Amado Araneta in t$rn trans/erred the earlier a#:$ired managerial rights to Al/redo again witho$t the #onsent /rom %nter&hil( ;$lo therea/ter in/ormed %nter&hil Boysaw<s readiness to #om&ly with the )o.ing #ontra#t o/ May 1 1361( The +AB a/ter a series o/ #on/eren#es o/ )oth &arties s#hed$led the -lorde8Boysaw /ight on =o7em)er 4 1361( ;$lo re/$sed to a##e&t the #harge in the /ight date e7en a/ter Sarreal o//ered to ad7an#e the /ight date to >#to)er ?8 1361( 6owe7er he #hanged his mind and de#ided to a##e&t the /ight date on =o7em)er 4 1361( !hile an -lorde8Boysaw /ight was e7ent$ally staged the /ight #ontem&lated in the May 1 1361 )o.ing #ontra#t ne7er materiali1ed( As a res$lt ;$lo and Boysaw s$ed %nter&hil /or damages allegedly d$e to the latter<s re/$sal to honor their #ommitments $nder the )o.ing #ontra#t o/ May 1 1361(

%SS@-S: 1( !as there a 7iolation o/ the /ight #ontra#t o/ May 1 1361A ?( %n re#i&ro#al o)ligations who has the &ower to res#indA

R@*%=+: 1( ;es( >n the iss$e &ertaining to the 7iolation o/ the May 1 1361 /ight #ontra#t the e7iden#e esta)lished that the #ontra#t was 7iolated )y a&&ellant Boysaw himsel/ when witho$t the a&&ro7al or #onsent o/ %nter&hil he /o$ght *o$is A7ila on 9$ne 13 1361 in *as Begas =e7ada( A&&ellant ;$lo admitted this /a#t d$ring the trial( Another 7iolation o/ the #ontra#t in :$estion was the assignment and trans/er /irst to 9( Amado Araneta and s$)se:$ently to a&&ellant ;$lo 9r( o/ the managerial rights o7er Boysaw witho$t the Cnowledge or #onsent o/ %nter&hil( ?( The &ower to res#ind o)ligations is im&lied in re#i&ro#al ones in #ase one o/ the o)ligors sho$ld not #om&ly with what is in#$m)ent $&on him( There is no do$)t that the #ontra#t in :$estion ga7e rise to re#i&ro#al o)ligations( ,Re#i&ro#al o)ligations are those whi#h arise /rom the same #a$se and in whi#h ea#h &arty is a de)tor and a #reditor o/ the other s$#h that the o)ligation o/ one is de&endent $&on the o)ligation o/ the other( They are to )e &er/ormed sim$ltaneo$sly so that the &er/orman#e o/ one is #onditioned $&on the sim$ltaneo$s /$l/illment o/ the other,The &ower to res#ind is gi7en to the in0$red &arty( ,!here the &lainti// is the &arty who did not &er/orm the $ndertaCing whi#h he was )o$nd )y the terms o/ the agreement to &er/orm 4 he is not entitled to insist $&on the &er/orman#e o/ the #ontra#t )y the de/endant or re#o7er damages )y reason o/ his own )rea#h , >n the 7alidity o/ the /ight &ost&onement the 7iolations o/ the terms o/ the original #ontra#t )y a&&ellants 7ested the a&&ellees with the right to res#ind and re&$diate s$#h #ontra#t altogether( That they so$ght to seeC an ad0$stment o/ one &arti#$lar #o7enant o/ the #ontra#t is $nder the #ir#$mstan#es within the a&&elleeDs rights(

You might also like