GILCHRIST VS CUDDY.docx

7/23/2019 GILCHRIST VS CUDDY.docx

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gilchrist-vs-cuddydocx 1/5

GILCHRIST VS CUDDYG.R. No. L-9356 February 18, 1915

FACTS:

Cuddy was the owner of the film Zigomar

April 24: He rented it to C. S. Gilhrist for a wee! for "#2$ A few days to the date of deli%ery& Cuddy sent the money 'a! to Gilhrist

Cuddy rented the film to (spe)o and his partner Zaldarriaga "*$+ for the wee! !nowing that it

was rented to someone else and that Cuddy aepted it 'eause he was paying a'out three times as

muh as he had ontrated with Gilhrist 'ut they didn,t !now the identity of the other party

Gilhrist filed for in)untion against these parties

Trial Court and CA: granted - there is a ontrat 'etween Gilhrist and Cuddy

SS/(: 01 (spe)o and his partner Zaldarriaga should 'e lia'le for damages though they do not !now

the identity of Gilhrist

H(3: 5(S. )udgment is affirmed

That Cuddy was lia'le in an ation for damages for the 'reah of that ontrat& there an 'e no

dou't.

the mere right to ompete ould not )ustify the appellants in intentionally induing Cuddy to ta!e

away the appellee,s ontratual rights

(%eryone has a right to en)oy the fruits and ad%antages of his own enterprise& industry&

s!ill and redit. He has no right to 'e free from maliious and wanton interferene& distur'ane or

annoyane. f distur'ane or loss ome as a result of ompetition& or the e6erise of li!e rights 'y

others& it is damnum a's7ue in)uria8loss without in)ury9& unless some superior right 'y ontrat or

otherwise is interfered with

Cuddy ontrat on the part of the appellants was a desire to ma!e a profit 'y e6hi'iting

the film in their theater. There was no malie 'eyond this desire 'ut this fat does not relie%e them of

the legal lia'ility for interfering with that ontrat and ausing its 'reah.

lia'ility of the appellants arises from unlawful ats and not from ontratual o'ligations& as they

were under no suh o'ligations to indue Cuddy to %iolate his ontrat with Gilhrist

So that if the ation of Gilhrist had 'een one for damages& it would 'e go%erned 'y hapter 2&

title #;& 'oo! 4 of the Ci%il Code.

Artile #<+2 of that ode pro%ides that a person who& 'y at or omission& auses

damages to another when there is fault or negligene& shall 'e o'liged to repair the damage do done

There is nothing in this artile whih re7uires as a ondition preedent to the lia'ility of a

tort-feasor that he must !now the identity of a person to whom he auses damages

An in)untion is a =speial remedy= whih was there issued 'y the authority and under the seal of

a ourt of e7uity& and limited& as in order ases where e7uita'le relief is sought& to ases where there

is no =plain& ade7uate& and omplete remedy at law&= whih =will not 'e granted while the rights



'etween the parties are undetermined& e6ept in e6traordinary ases where material and irrepara'le

in)ury will 'e done&= whih annot 'e ompensated in damages& and where there will 'e no ade7uate

remedy& and whih will not& as a rule& 'e granted& to ta!e property out of the possession of one party

and put it into that of another whose title has not 'een esta'lished 'y law

irrepara'le in)ury not meant suh in)ury as is 'eyond the possi'ility of repair& or 'eyond possi'le

ompensation in damages& nor neessarily great in)ury or great damage& 'ut that speies of in)ury&

whether great or small& that ought not to 'e su'mitted to on the one hand or inflited on the other

and& 'eause it is so large on the one hand& or so small on the other& is of suh onstant and fre7uent

reurrene that no fair or reasona'le redress an 'e had therefor in a ourt of law

Gilhrist was faing the immediate prospet of diminished profits 'y reason of the fat that the

appellants had indued Cuddy to rent to them the film Gilhrist had ounted upon as his feature film

t is 7uite apparent that to estimate with any deree of auray the damages whih

Gilhrist would li!ely suffer from suh an e%ent would 'e 7uite diffiult if not impossi'le

So far as the preliminary in)untion issued against the appellants is onerned& whih prohi'ited

them from e6hi'iting the Zigomar during the wee! whih Gilhrist desired to e6hi'it it& we are of the

opinion that the irumstanes )ustified the issuane of that in)untion in the disretion of the ourt

the remedy 'y in)untion annot 'e used to restrain a legitimate ompetition& though suh

ompetition would in%ol%e the %iolation of a ontrat



S !ING "UN VS C#GR N. 1$%55&, S'!T. $1, 1999

Synopsis:

Te! Hua (nterprises is the lessee of ee C. Chuan > Sons& n. in the latter?s premises in @inondo 'ut itwas So "ing @un who was oupying the same for his Trendsetter ar!eting. 3ater& r. anuel Tiongas!ed So "ing @un to %aate the premises 'ut the 'atter refused and entered into formal ontrats of lease with CCS. n a suit for in)untion& pri%ate respondents pressed for the nullifiation of the leaseontrats 'etween CCS and petitioner& and for damages. The trial ourt ruled in fa%or of pri%aterespondents and the same was affirmed 'y the Court of Appeals.

There was tort interferene in the ase at 'ar as petitioner depri%ed respondent orporation of the latter?sproperty right. Howe%er& nothing on reord imputed malie on petitioner thus& preluding damages. @utalthough the e6tent of damages was not 7uantifia'le& it does not relie%e petitioner of the legal lia'ility for entering into ontrats and ausing 'reah of e6isting ones. Hene& the Court onfirmed the permanentin)untion and nullifiation of the lease ontrats 'etween CCS and Trendsetter ar!eting.

FACTS:

• n #<;*& Te! Hua Trading Co& through its managing partner& So "e! Gio!& entered into lease

agreements with lessor ee C. Chuan > Sons n. 8CCS9. Su')ets of four 849 lease ontratswere premises loated at Soler Street& @inondo& anila. Te! Hua used the areas to store itste6tiles. The ontrats eah had a one-year term. They pro%ided that should the lessee ontinueto oupy the premises after the term& the lease shall 'e on a month-to-month 'asis.

B 0hen the ontrats e6pired& the parties did not renew the ontrats& 'ut Te! Hua ontinued tooupy the premises. n #<;& Te! Hua Trading Co. was dissol%ed. 3ater& the original mem'ers of Te! Hua Trading Co. inluding anuel C. Tiong& formed Te! Hua (nterprising Corp.& hereinrespondent orporation.

B So "e! Gio!& managing partner of Te! Hua Trading& died in #<D;. So "e! Gio!?s grandson&

petitioner So "ing @un& oupied the warehouse for his own te6tile 'usiness& Trendsetter ar!eting.

B En August #& #<D<& lessor CCS sent letters addressed to Te! Hua (nterprises& informing thelatter of the 2$ inrease in rent effeti%e Septem'er #& #<D<. The rent inrease was later onredued to 2+ effeti%e anuary #& #<<+& upon other lessees? demand. Again on eem'er #&#<<+& the lessor implemented a *+ rent inrease. (nlosed in these letters were new leaseontrats for signing. CCSwarned that failure of the lessee to aomplish the ontrats shall 'e deemed as la! of intereston the lessee?s part& and agreement to the termination of the lease. "ri%ate respondents did notanswer any of these letters. Still& the lease ontrats were not resinded.

B En arh #& #<<#& pri%ate respondent Tiong sent a letter to petitioner& whih readsas follows:

arh #& #<<#ear r. So&

ue to my losed 8si9 'usiness assoiate 8si9 for three deades with your lategrandfather r. So "e! Gio! and late father& r. So Chong @on& allowed youtemporarily to use the warehouse of Te! Hua (nterprising Corp. for se%eral yearsto generate your personal 'usiness.Sine deided to go 'a! into te6tile 'usiness& need a warehouse immediatelyfor my sto!s. Therefore& please 'e ad%ised to %aate all your sto!s in Te! Hua(nterprising Corp. 0arehouse. 5ou are here'y gi%en #4 days to %aate the



premises unless you ha%e good reasons that you ha%e the right to stay.Etherwise& will 'e onstrained to ta!e measure to protet my interest."lease gi%e this urgent matter your preferential attention to a%oid inon%enieneon your part.

ery truly yours&8Sgd9 anuel C. Tiong

B "etitioner refused to %aate. En arh 4& #<<2& petitioner re7uested formal ontrats of leasewith CCS in fa%or Trendsetter ar!eting. So "ing @un laimed that after the death of hisgrandfather& So "e! Gio!& he had 'een oupying the premises for his te6tile 'usiness andreligiously paid rent. CCS aeded to petitioner?s re7uest. The lease ontrats in fa%or of Trendsetter were e6euted.

B Bn the suit for in)untion& pri%ate respondents pressed for the nullifiation of the lease ontrats'etween CCS and petitioner and as well prayed for damages. The Trial Court ruled in their fa%or as upheld 'y the Court of Appeals.

SS/(: 0H(TH(I TH( A""(33AT( CE/IT (II( AFFIG TH( TIA3 CE/IT?S (CSEFG SE "G @/ G/3T5 EF TEIT/E/S T(IF(I(C( EF CETIACT 8Gi%en that noaward for damages were gi%en to the pri%ate respondents9J

H(3:

"(TTE S ((.

The CA did not err in its deision. There an still 'e tortuous interferene despite no award for damageswere gi%en 'y the Court. amage is the loss& hurt& or harm whih results from in)ury& and damages arethe reompense or ompensation awarded for the damage suffered. Ene 'eomes lia'le in an ation for damages for a non-trespassory in%asion of another?s interest in the pri%ate use and en)oyment of asset if 8a9 the other has property rights and pri%ileges with respet to the use or en)oyment interfered with&8'9 the in%asion is su'stantial&89 the defendant?s ondut is a legalause of the in%asion& and

8d9 the in%asion is either intentional and unreasona'le or unintentional and actionable under general negligence rules.

The elements of tort interferene are:(1) existence of valid contract;(2) knowledge on the part of the third person of the existence of contract; and(3) interference of the third person is without legal justification or excuse.

n the instant ase& it is lear that petitioner So "ing @un pre%ailed upon CCS to lease the warehouse tohis enterprise at the e6pense of respondent orporation. Though petitioner too! interest in the property of respondent orporation and 'enefited from it& nothing on reord imputes deli'erate wrongful moti%es or malie on him.

Section 1314 of the Ci%il Code ategorially pro%ides also that& K n! third person who induces another toviolate his contract shall be liable for da"ages to the other contracting part!#L"etitioner argues that damage is an essential element of tort interferene& and sine the trial ourt and theappellate ourt ruled that pri%ate respondents were not entitled to atual& moral or e6emplary damages& itfollows that he ought to 'e a'sol%ed of any lia'ility& inluding attorney?s fees. t is true that the lower ourtsdid not award damages& 'ut this was only 'eause the e6tent of damages was not 7uantifia'le. 0e had asimilar situation in $ilchrist & where it was diffiult or impossi'le to determine the e6tent of damage andthere was nothing on reord to ser%e as 'asis thereof. n that ase we refrained from awarding damages.0e 'elie%e the same onlusion applies in this ase. 0hile we do not enourage tort interferers see!ingtheir eonomi interest to intrude into e6isting ontrats at the e6pense of others& howe%er& we find that



the ondut herein omplained of did not transend the limits for'idding an o'ligatory award for damagesin the a'sene of any malie. The 'usiness desire is there to ma!e some gain to the detriment of theontrating parties. 3a! of malie& howe%er& preludes damages. @ut it does not relie%e petitioner of thelegal lia'ility for entering into ontrats and ausing 'reah of e6isting ones. The respondent appellateourt orretly onfirmed the permanent in)untion and nullifiation of the lease ontrats 'etween CCSand Trendsetter ar!eting& without awarding damages. The in)untion sa%ed the respondents from further damage or in)ury aused 'y petitioner?s interferene.

Documents

GILCHRIST VS CUDDY.docx