Family of ex-SC justice told to pay balance of boxer’s prize money | Inquirer News

Family of ex-SC justice told to pay balance of boxer’s prize money

/ 08:01 PM June 15, 2015

The Court of Appeals has ordered the family of a former Supreme Court Justice to pay former world boxing champion Luisito Espinosa US$130,349.00 which represents the balance of his prize money for winning the World Boxing Council Featherweight title in 1997.

In a 29-page decision promulgated on May 26, 2015 but made public Monday, the appeals court second division through Associate Justice Ramon Cruz reversed the decision of the Manila Regional Trial Court Branch 173 that dismissed Espinosa’s bid to collect the sum of money with damages against Rodolfo Nazario, husband of retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Minita Chico-Nazario, former South Cotabato Governor Hilario de Pedro III and Joselito Mondejar. The three were the promoters and organizers of Espinosa’s fight.

The appeals court said since Nazario already died, his legal heirs Minita and their children Roderick Nazario, Rommelious Nazario and Karen Patricia Nazario-Bouzaid are ordered to pay Espinosa the amount of $130,349 plus 12 percent interest rate per annum which will be counted from the date of judicial demand on May 25, 1998 until June 30, 2013 and interest at the rate of six percent from July 1, 2013 until full satisfaction.

Article continues after this advertisement

In 1997, Espinosa, together with his manager Joe Koizumi entered into a contract with Nazario and the two others for a title match against Carlos Rios of Argentina to be held in South Cotabato.

FEATURED STORIES

Under the contract, the promoters shall pay Koizumi and Espinosa the guaranteed purse of $150,000 and training expenses of US$10,000. They also agreed to pay Espinosa and Koizumi an advance of $50,000 and the $10,000 training expenses. But before the scheduled fight, the promoters paid $29,651 advance instead of the $60,000 that was agreed upon.

On the day of the actual fight, all parties executed a letter of guarantee which promised the payment of the balance of $130,349 on or before Dec. 16, 1997. But after the fight and despite demands, no payment was made.

Article continues after this advertisement

Then, Espinosa and Koizumi filed a complaint before the Manila Regional Trial Court who ruled in favor of the promoters. They filed a motion for reconsideration but this was denied by the court. The two took their case to the Court of Appeals.

Article continues after this advertisement

The appeals court, in deciding in favor of Espinosa, said Nazario’s allegation that he merely signed the agreement in “name only” and that he merely “noted” the Letter of Guarantee is an implied admission of the due execution and genuineness of the said instrument.

Article continues after this advertisement

“The admission of the genuineness of the said document means that the party whose signature it bears admits that he voluntarily signed the document…,” the appeals court said.

“Judicial admissions do not require proof and may not be contradicted in the absence of a prior showing that the admissions had been made through palpabale mistake,” it addded.

Article continues after this advertisement

The appeals court added that Nazario’s defense that he signed the agreement as an “accommodation party” has no merit.

“This defense, however, is not readily apparent from a perusal of the contents of the agreement. In fact, the agreement specifically referred to defendant-appellee Nazario as the local promoter and his obligation as such was clearly set forth in the said agreement,” the appeals court explained.

As for Mondejar, the appeals court said it was established that he was not a signatory in the contract and the letter of guarantee, thus, warranting the dismissal of the case against him.

On the other hand, the court said Espinosa’s camp failed to pursue the case against de Pedro despite the latter’s failure to file his answer to the complaint after his motion to dismiss was denied by the RTC.

“The complaint was filed by the plaintiffs in 1997, and it has been 18 years for the case to reach this point. It would be unfair and impractical to let this case go on for another number of years…We dismiss the case against defendant-appellee Governor de Pedro III for failure to prosecute…,” it added.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Subscribe to our daily newsletter

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.

Concurring with the ruling were Remedios Salazar-Fernando and Marlene Gonzales-Sison. AU

TAGS: Court of Appeals, News

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Subscribe to our newsletter!

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.

© Copyright 1997-2024 INQUIRER.net | All Rights Reserved

This is an information message

We use cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more here.