G.R. No. L-22590 March 20, 1987
SOLOMON BOYSAW and ALFREDO M. YULO, JR., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. INTERPHIL PROMOTIONS, INC., LOPE SARREAL, SR., and MANUEL NIETO, JR., defendants-appellees.

FACTS

Plaintiffs-appellants Solomon Boysaw, a boxer, and his manager Alfredo Yulo, Jr., sued defendants-appellees Interphil Promotions, its president Lope Sarreal, Sr., and Games and Amusement Board (GAB) Chairman Manuel Nieto, Jr., for damages. They alleged that the defendants refused to honor a boxing contract dated May 1, 1961, for a world title fight between Boysaw and Gabriel “Flash” Elorde on September 30, 1961. The contract allowed a mutually agreed postponement of up to thirty days. Disputes arose concerning a change in Boysaw’s management and the scheduling of the fight. The GAB intervened and rescheduled the bout for November 4, 1961, a date Yulo refused to accept despite an offer to move it to October 28, 1961, which was within the contractual 30-day window. The contemplated fight never materialized under the original contract’s terms.
During trial, plaintiff Boysaw left the Philippines without court permission and failed to appear on multiple scheduled hearing dates. After assurances from their counsel, the trial court deemed the plaintiffs’ case submitted on the evidence already presented when Boysaw again failed to appear. Plaintiffs’ new counsel’s motions for postponement were denied. The trial court proceeded, and the plaintiffs’ counsel declined to participate further. The lower court dismissed the complaint and awarded damages to the defendants. Plaintiffs appealed, contesting the awards.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the trial court erred in awarding moral damages to the defendants-appellees.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision but deleted the award of moral damages. The legal logic centers on the statutory basis for moral damages under the Civil Code. Article 2219 enumerates the specific cases where moral damages may be recovered, such as criminal offenses, quasi-delicts causing physical injuries, defamation, illegal detention, and acts covered by Articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, and 35. The Court held that the plaintiffs’ action was based purely on an alleged breach of contract. A breach of contract, by itself, is not one of the grounds listed in Article 2219 for awarding moral damages. The Court further ruled that the act of filing a lawsuit, even if it is ultimately found to be erroneous or without merit, is not a wrongful act that warrants moral damages. The right to litigate is sacred, and penalizing a party with moral damages for exercising this right, albeit incorrectly, would unduly restrict access to courts. The proper penalty for an erroneous suit is the imposition of costs, not moral damages. Consequently, the awards for unrealized profits, actual damages, and attorney’s fees were upheld due to sufficient unrebutted evidence, but the moral damages were deleted for lack of legal basis.