GILCHRIST V CUDDY February 18, 1915 G.R. No. L-9356 C. S. GILCHRIST, plaintiff-appellee, vs. E. A. CUDDY, ET AL.,
defendants. JOSE FERNANDEZ ESPEJO and MARIANO ZALDARRIAGA, appellants.
FACTS:
One Cuddy, the owner of a cinematographic film “Zigomar”, let it under a rental contract to the plaintiff Gilchrist, the owner of a cinematograph theater in Iloilo, for a specified period of time or for a number of days beginning May 26. In violation of the terms of this agreement, Cuddy proceeded to turn over the film also under a rental contract, to the defendants Espejo and Zaldarriaga The arrangement between Cuddy and the appellants for the exhibition of the film by the latter on the 26th of May were perfected after April 26, so that the six weeks would include and extend beyond May 26. Gilchrist thereupon restored to the Court of First Instance
DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:
1. CFI - produced an injunction restraining the defendants from exhibiting the film in question in their theater during the period specified in the contract of Cuddy with Gilchrist
ISSUE:
Whether the injunction was properly granted; Whether Cuddy is liable for damages to Gilchrist
RULING:
Yes, although the defendants did not, at the time their contract was made, know the identity of the plaintiff as the person holding the prior contract but did know of the existence of a contract in favor of someone In the case at bar the only motive for the interference with the Gilchrist - Cuddy contract on the part of the appellants was a desire to make a profit by exhibiting the film in their theater. There was no malice beyond this desire; but this fact does not relieve them of the legal liability for interfering with that contract and causing its breach. It is, therefore, clear, under the above authorities, that they were liable to Gilchrist for the damages caused by their acts, unless they are relieved from such liability by reason of the fact that they did not know at the time the identity of the original lessee (Gilchrist) of the film.
Article 1902 of that code provides that a person who, by act or omission, causes damages to another when there is fault or negligence, shall be obliged to repair the damage do done. There is nothing in this article which requires as a condition precedent to the liability of a tort-feasor that he must know the identity of a person to whom he causes damages. In fact, the chapter wherein this article is found clearly shows that no such knowledge is required in order that the injured party may recover for the damage suffered.
One who buys something which he knows has been sold to some other person can be restrained from using that thing to the prejudice of the person having the prior and better right.
Chief Justice Wells:"Everyone has a right to enjoy the fruits and advantages of his own enterprise, industry, skill and credit. He has no right to be free from malicious and wanton interference, disturbance or annoyance. If disturbance or loss come as a result of competition, or the exercise of like rights by others, it is damnum absque injuria, unless some superior right by contract or otherwise is interfered with."
"One who wrongfully interferes in a contract between others, and, for the purpose of gain to himself induces one of the parties to break it, is liable to the party injured thereby; and his continued interference may be ground for an injunction where the injuries resulting will be irreparable."
FACTS:
One Cuddy, the owner of a cinematographic film “Zigomar”, let it under a rental contract to the plaintiff Gilchrist, the owner of a cinematograph theater in Iloilo, for a specified period of time or for a number of days beginning May 26. In violation of the terms of this agreement, Cuddy proceeded to turn over the film also under a rental contract, to the defendants Espejo and Zaldarriaga The arrangement between Cuddy and the appellants for the exhibition of the film by the latter on the 26th of May were perfected after April 26, so that the six weeks would include and extend beyond May 26. Gilchrist thereupon restored to the Court of First Instance
DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:
1. CFI - produced an injunction restraining the defendants from exhibiting the film in question in their theater during the period specified in the contract of Cuddy with Gilchrist
ISSUE:
Whether the injunction was properly granted; Whether Cuddy is liable for damages to Gilchrist
RULING:
Yes, although the defendants did not, at the time their contract was made, know the identity of the plaintiff as the person holding the prior contract but did know of the existence of a contract in favor of someone In the case at bar the only motive for the interference with the Gilchrist - Cuddy contract on the part of the appellants was a desire to make a profit by exhibiting the film in their theater. There was no malice beyond this desire; but this fact does not relieve them of the legal liability for interfering with that contract and causing its breach. It is, therefore, clear, under the above authorities, that they were liable to Gilchrist for the damages caused by their acts, unless they are relieved from such liability by reason of the fact that they did not know at the time the identity of the original lessee (Gilchrist) of the film.
Article 1902 of that code provides that a person who, by act or omission, causes damages to another when there is fault or negligence, shall be obliged to repair the damage do done. There is nothing in this article which requires as a condition precedent to the liability of a tort-feasor that he must know the identity of a person to whom he causes damages. In fact, the chapter wherein this article is found clearly shows that no such knowledge is required in order that the injured party may recover for the damage suffered.
One who buys something which he knows has been sold to some other person can be restrained from using that thing to the prejudice of the person having the prior and better right.
Chief Justice Wells:"Everyone has a right to enjoy the fruits and advantages of his own enterprise, industry, skill and credit. He has no right to be free from malicious and wanton interference, disturbance or annoyance. If disturbance or loss come as a result of competition, or the exercise of like rights by others, it is damnum absque injuria, unless some superior right by contract or otherwise is interfered with."
"One who wrongfully interferes in a contract between others, and, for the purpose of gain to himself induces one of the parties to break it, is liable to the party injured thereby; and his continued interference may be ground for an injunction where the injuries resulting will be irreparable."
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment