Torts and Damages Case Digest: Gilchrist v. Cuddy (1915)

G.R. No. L-9356             February 18, 1915
Lessons Applicable: Interference with Contractual Relations (Torts and Damages)

Laws Applicable: Article 1902 (old law)

FACTS:

• Cuddy was the owner of the film Zigomar 
• April 24: He rented it to C. S. Gilchrist for a week for P125 
• A few days to the date of delivery, Cuddy sent the money back to Gilchrist
• Cuddy rented the film to Espejo and his partner Zaldarriaga P350 for the week knowing that it was rented to someone else and that Cuddy accepted it because he was paying about three times as much as he had contracted with Gilchrist  but they didn't know the identity of the other party
• Gilchrist filed for injunction against these parties
• Trial Court and CA:  granted - there is a contract between  Gilchrist and Cuddy

ISSUE: W/N Espejo and his partner Zaldarriaga  should be liable for damages though they do not know the identity of Gilchrist 

HELD: YES. judgment is affirmed

• That Cuddy was liable in an action for damages for the breach of that contract, there can be no doubt.
• the mere right to compete could not justify the appellants in intentionally inducing Cuddy to take away the appellee's contractual rights
• 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(loss without injury), unless some superior right by contract or otherwise is interfered with
• 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.
• liability of the appellants arises from unlawful acts and not from contractual obligations, as they were under no such obligations to induce Cuddy to violate his contract with Gilchrist
• So that if the action of Gilchrist had been one for damages, it would be governed by chapter 2, title 16, book 4 of the Civil Code. 
• 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
• An injunction is a "special remedy" which was there issued by the authority and under the seal of a court of equity, and limited, as in order cases where equitable relief is sought, to cases where there is no "plain, adequate, and complete remedy at law," which "will not be granted while the rights between the parties are undetermined, except in extraordinary cases where material and irreparable injury will be done," which cannot be compensated in damages, and where there will be no adequate remedy, and which will not, as a rule, be granted, to take property out of the possession of one party and put it into that of another whose title has not been established by law
• irreparable injury  
• not meant such injury as is beyond the possibility of repair, or beyond possible compensation in damages, nor necessarily great injury or great damage, but that species of injury, whether great or small, that ought not to be submitted to on the one hand or inflicted on the other; and, because it is so large on the one hand, or so small on the other, is of such constant and frequent recurrence that no fair or reasonable redress can be had therefor in a court of law
• Gilchrist was facing the immediate prospect of diminished profits by reason of the fact that the appellants had induced Cuddy to rent to them the film Gilchrist had counted upon as his feature film
• It is quite apparent that to estimate with any decree of accuracy the damages which Gilchrist would likely suffer from such an event would be quite difficult if not impossible
• So far as the preliminary injunction issued against the appellants is concerned, which prohibited them from exhibiting the Zigomar during the week which Gilchrist desired to exhibit it, we are of the opinion that the circumstances justified the issuance of that injunction in the discretion of the court
• the remedy by injunction cannot be used to restrain a legitimate competition, though such competition would involve the violation of a contract

Separate Opinion:

• MORELAND, J., concurring:
• The court seems to be of the opinion that the action is one for a permanent injunction; whereas, under my view of the case, it is one for specific performance.
• The very nature of the case demonstrates that a permanent injunction is out of the question. The only thing that plaintiff desired was to be permitted to use the film for the week beginning the 26th of May. With the termination of that week his rights expired. After that time Cuddy was perfectly free to turn the film over to the defendants Espejo and Zaldarriaga for exhibition at any time. 
• No damages are claimed by reason of the issuance of the mandatory injunction under which the film was delivered to plaintiff and used by him during the week beginning the 26th of May.