144. Lagunzad Vs Vda. De Gonzales And The Ca.docx

G. R. No. L-32066

MANUEL LAGUNZAD, Petitioner, vs. MARIA SOTO VDA. DE GONZALES and THE COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents. Article 1306. The Principle of Freedom to Stipulate in a contract.

FACTS:

Sometime in August, 1961, petitioner Manuel Lagunzad, a newspaperman, began the production of a movie entitled "The Moises Padilla Story". The emphasis of the movie was on the public life of Moises Padilla, however, there were portions which dealt with his private and family life including the portrayal in some scenes, of his mother, Maria Soto and of one "Auring" as his girl friend. As such, on October 5, 1961, Mrs. Nelly Amante, half-sister of Moises, for and in behalf of her mother, Maria Soto, demanded in writing for certain changes, corrections and deletions in the movie. On the same date, after some bargaining, the petitioner and private respondent executed a “Licensing Agreement” where the petitioner agreed to pay the private respondent the sum of P20,000.00.

After its premier showing on October 16, 1961, the movie was shown in different theaters all over the country. But petitioner refused to pay any additional amounts pursuant to the Agreement, on December 22, 1961, private respondent instituted the present suit against him. Petitioner contended that the Licensing Agreement was without valid cause or consideration and that he signed the same only because of the coercion and threat employed upon him.

ISSUES:

Whether or not the "Licensing Agreement" entered into by and between petitioner Lagunzad and private respondent Vda. de Gonzales is null and void for allegedly having been entered into by the former under duress, intimidation and undue influence.

RULING:

No. The Supreme Court found 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 essence.” 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.