MANUEL LAGUNZAD,
petitioner, v. MARIA SOTO VDA. DE GONZALES AND THE COURT OF APPEALS,
respondents.
G.R. No. L-32066 | August
6, 1979
Ponente: Melencio-Herrera
DOCTRINE(S): Duties
must comply with contracts entered into where provisions thereof are not
contrary to law, morals, good suctoms, public orders or public policy
FACTS:
Sometime in August 1961, petitioner Manuel Lagunzad, a
newspaperman, began the production of a movie entitled “The Moises Padilla
Story” under the “MML Productions.” It was based mainly on the copyrighted but
unpublished book of Atty. Ernesto Rodriguez Jr., entitled “The Long Dark Night
in Negros” subtitled “The Moises Padilla Story,” the rights to which petitioner
had purchased from Atty. Rodriguez in the amount of P2,000.00.
Although the emphasis of the movie was on the public life of
Moises Padilla, there were portions which dealt with his private and family life
including the portrayal in some scenes, of his mother, Maria Soto Vda. de Gonzales,
private respondent herein, and of one “Auring” as his girlfriend.
On October 3, 1961, petitioner received a telephone call
from one Mrs. Nelly Amante, half-sister of Moises Padilla, objecting to the
filming of the movie and the “exploitation” of his life. Shown the early “rushes”
of the picture, Mrs. Amante and her sister, Mrs. Gaieres, objected to many
portions thereof notwithstanding petitioner’s explanation that the movie had
been supervised by Ernesto Rodriguez Jr. On Oct. 5, 1961, Mrs. Amante, for and
in behalf of her mother, private respondent, demanded in writing for certain
changes, corrections and deletions in the movie. Petitioner contends that he
acceded to the demands because he had already invested heavily in the picture
to the extent of mortgaging his properties, in addition to the fact that he had
to meet the scheduled target date of the premiere showing.
On the same date, after some bargaining as to the amount to
be paid, which was P50,000.00 at first, then reduced to P20,000.00, petitioner
and private respondent, represented by her daughters and Atty. Ernesto Rodriguez,
executed a “Licensing Agreement”.
Petitioner takes the position that he was pressured into
signing the Agreement because of private respondent’s demand, through Mrs.
Amante, for payment for the “exploitation” of the life story of Moises Padilla,
otherwise, she would “call a press conference declaring the whole picture as a
fake, fraud and a hoax and would denounce the whole thing in the press, radio,
television and that they were going to Court to stop the picture.”
On Oct. 10, 1961, petitioner paid private respondent the
amount of P5,000.00 but contends that he did so not pursuant to their Agreement
but just to placate private respondent.
Because petitioner refused to pay any additional amounts
pursuant to the Agreement, on Dec. 22, 1961, private respondent instituted the
present suit against him praying for judgment in her favor ordering petitioner
1) to pay her the amount of P15,000.00, with legal interest from the filing of
the Complaint; 2) to render an accounting of the proceeds from the picture and
to pay the corresponding 2-1/2% royalty therefrom; 3) to pay attorney’s fees
equivalent to 20% of the amounts claimed; and 4) to pay the costs.
Petitioner contended in his Answer that the episodes in the
life of Moises Padilla depicted in the movie were matters of public knowledge
and occurred at or about the same time that the deceased became and was a
public figure; that private respondent has no property right over those
incidents; that the Licensing Agreement was without valid cause or consideration
and that he signed the same only because private respondent threatened him with
unfounded harassing action which would have delayed production; and that he
paid private respondent the amount of P5,000.00 in October 1961, only because
of the coercion and threat employed upon him. Petitioner demanded that the
Licensing Agreement be declared null and void for being without any valid cause.
Private respondent duly filed her Answer to Counterclaim
alleging that the transaction between her and petitioner was entered into
freely and voluntarily.
ISSUE(S):
Whether or not the Licensing Agreement is null and void for
lack of or for having an illegal cause or consideration of contract.
RULING:
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review is denied and the
judgement appealed from hereby affirmed.
RATIO:
While it is true that petitioner had purchased the rights to
the book entitled “The Moises Padilla Sotry,” that did not dispense with the
need for prior consent and authority from the deceased heirs to portray
publicly episodes in said deceases’s life and in that of his mother and the
members of his family. As held in Schuyler v. Curtis, “a privilege may be given
the surviving relatives of a deceased person to protect his memory, but the
privilege exists for the benefit of the living to protect their feelings and to
prevent a violation of their own rights in the character and memory of the deceased.”
We also find it difficult to sustain petitioner’s posture
that his consent to the Licensing Agreement was procured thru duress,
intimidation and undue influence exerted on him by private respondent and her
daughters at a time when he had exhausted his financial resources, the premiere
showing of the picture was imminent, and “time was of the essense.” As held in
Martinez vs. Hongkong & Shanghai Bank, it is necessary to distinguish
between real duress and the motive which is present when one gives his consent
reluctantly. A contract is valid even though one of the parties entered into it
against his own wish and desires, or even against his better judgment. In legal
effect, there is no difference between a contract wherein one of the contracting
parties exchanges one condition for another because he looks for greater profit
or gain by reason of such change, and an agreement wherein one of the
contracting parties agrees to accept the lesser of two disadvantages. In either
case, he makes a choice free and untrammeled and must accordingly abide by it. The
Licensing Agreement has the force of law between the contracting parties and
since its provisions are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public
order or public policy (Art. 1306, Civil Code), petitioner should comply with
it in good faith.
Comments
Post a Comment