Facts:

• The case involves Solomon Boysaw and Alfredo M. Yulo, Jr. (plaintiffs-appellants) against Interphil Promotions, Inc., Lope Sarreal, Sr., and Manuel Nieto, Jr. (defendants-appellees).
• On May 1, 1961, Boysaw and his manager, Willie Ketchum, signed a contract with Interphil Promotions, Inc. to engage boxer Gabriel "Flash" Elorde in a title fight on September 30, 1961.
• The contract prohibited Boysaw from participating in any other boxing contest without Interphil's written consent prior to the scheduled fight.
• A supplemental agreement was signed on May 3, 1961, outlining additional terms.
• On June 19, 1961, Boysaw fought and won against Louis Avila in a non-title bout in Las Vegas, Nevada, without Interphil's consent, breaching the contract.
• Ketchum assigned Boysaw's managerial rights to J. Amado Araneta on July 2, 1961, who later assigned them to Yulo on September 1, 1961, both without Interphil's knowledge or consent.
• On September 5, 1961, Yulo informed Sarreal of his managerial rights and their intention to comply with the contract.
• Sarreal raised concerns to the Games and Amusement Board (GAB) regarding the managerial changes.
• The GAB scheduled the fight for November 4, 1961, which Yulo refused, insisting on the original date.
• On October 12, 1961, Boysaw and Yulo filed a lawsuit against Interphil, Sarreal, and Nieto for damages due to the alleged refusal to honor the contract.
• The trial proceeded without Boysaw on July 23, 1963, leading to the dismissal of the complaint, with the lower court ruling in favor of the defendants and awarding them damages.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• Yes, the court found that Boysaw violated the fight contract by participating in a bout without Interphil's consent.
• Boysaw was primarily responsible for the violation.
• The court ruled that the postponement of the fight date was justified due to circumstances beyond the appellees' control.
• The lower court did not err in refusing to postpone the trial.
• The denial of the motion fo...(Unlock)

Ratio:

• The court's decision was based on contract law principles, emphasizing the obligations of the parties involved.
• Boysaw's participation in the fight against Avila constituted a breach of contract, rendering him liable for damages despite no penalty being imposed.
• Contractual obligations are reciprocal; a party cannot demand performance if they have failed to comply with their own obligations.
• The assign...continue reading