BOYSAW V INTERPHIL PROMOTIONS INC

GR. NO. L-22590 / MARCH 20, 1987 / J. FERNAN / AABPAYAD

NATURE:
Appeal
PETITIONER:
Solomon Boysaw and Alfredo Yulo
RESPONDENT: Interphil Promotions, Inc. et. al.
DOCTRINE: Where one party did not perform the
undertaking which he was bound by the terms of the
agreement to perform, he is not entitled to insist upon the
performance of the contract by the other party, or recover
damages by reason of his own breach.
FACTS:
On May 1, 1961, Boysaw and manager Ketchum
signed with Interphil (represented by Sarreal) a
contract to engage Flash Elorde in a boxing match at
Rizal Memorial Stadium on Sept 30, 1961 or not later
than 30 days should a postponement be mutually
agreed upon. Boysaw, according to contract, should
not engage in other bouts prior to the contest.
Interphil signed Elorde to a similar agreement.
Boysaw fought and defeated Louis Avila in Nevada.
Ketchum assigned to Amado Araneta his managerial
rights, who later transferred the rights to Alfredo Yulo.
Sarreal wrote to Games and Amusement Board (GAB)
regarding this switch of managers because they
werent notified.
GAB called for conferences and decided to schedule
the Elorde-Boysaw bout on
On Nov 4, 1961, USA National Boxing Assoc approved.
Sarreal offered to move the fight to Oct 28 for it to be
w/in the 30 day allowable postponement in the
contract. Yulo refused. He was willing to approve the
fight on Nov 4 provided it will be promoted by a certain
Mamerto Besa.
The fight contemplated in the May 1 contract never
materialized.
Boysaw and Yulo sued Interphil, Sarreal and Nieto.

Boysaw was abroad when he was scheduled to take

the witness stand. Lower court reset the trial. Boysaw
was still absent on the later date. Court reset. On the
third instance, a motion for postponement was denied.
Boysaw and Yulo moved for a new trial, but it was
denied. Hence, this appeal.

ISSUES & RATIO:

WON the offending party in a reciprocal obligation
may compel the other party for specific performance?
- No.
The evidence established that the contract was violated by
appellant Boysaw himself when, without the approval or
consent of Interphil, he fought Louis Avila on June 19, 1961 in
Las Vegas Nevada. Another violation of the contract in
question was the assignment and transfer, first to J. Amado
Araneta, and subsequently, to appellant Yulo, Jr., of the
managerial rights over Boysaw without the knowledge or
consent of Interphil. The power to rescind is given to the
injured party. "Where the plaintiff is the party who did not
perform the undertaking which he was bound by the terms of
the agreement to perform 4 he is not entitled to insist upon
the performance of the contract by the defendant, or recover
damages by reason of his own breach " Under the law 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.
However, it is clear that the appellees, instead of availing
themselves of the options given to them by law of rescission
or refusal to recognize the substitute obligor Yulo, really
wanted to postpone the fight date owing to an injury that
Elorde sustained in a recent bout. That the appellees had the
justification to renegotiate the original contract, particularly
the fight date is undeniable from the facts aforestated. Under
the circumstances, the appellees' desire to postpone the fight
date could neither be unlawful nor unreasonable.
DECISION

WHEREFORE, except for the award of moral damages which

is herein deleted, the decision of the lower court is hereby
affirmed.