G.R. No.
L-32066 August 6, 1979
MANUEL LAGUNZAD, petitioner,
vs.
MARIA SOTO VDA. DE GONZALES and THE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.
FACTS:
Petitioner, a newspaperman, began the production of a movie portraying the life of Moises
Padilla, a murdered mayoralty candidate considered to be a martyr in contemporary
political history. 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, and of one “Auring” as his girl friend.
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. Gavieres, objected to many
portions thereof. 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.
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."
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,
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 and 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. By way of counterclaim, 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:
Whether the licensing agreement was null and void for the petitioner's consent having
been procured by means of duress, intimidation, and undue influence.
RULING:
No. The Court 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 essence." 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.
