ABS CBN Vs REPUBLIC BROADCASTING CORP

You might also like

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 2

G.R. No.

128690
ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
vs.
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, REPUBLIC BROADCASTING CORP, VIVA
PRODUCTION, INC., and VICENTE DEL ROSARIO
January 21, 1999

DAVIDE, JR., CJ.:

FACTS:
In 1990, ABS-CBN and VIVA executed a Film Exhibition Agreement whereby Viva gave
ABS-CBN an exclusive right to exhibit some Viva films.

After the rejection of ABS-CBN, defendant Del Rosario and Viva's President Teresita
Cruz signed a letter of agreement granting RBS the exclusive right to air 104 Viva-
produced and/or acquired films including the fourteen (14) films subject of the present
case.

On 27 May 1992, ABS-CBN filed before the RTC a complaint for specific performance
with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order
against private respondents RBS, VIVA, and Vicente del Rosario from proceeding with
the airing, broadcasting, and televising of the fourteen VIVA films subject of the
controversy, starting with the film Maging Sino Ka Man, which the RTC issued the
following day.

ISSUE: Whether or not RBS may recover moral and exemplary damages from ABS-
CBN.

RULING:

No.The claim of RBS did not arise from contract, quasi-contract, delict, or quasi-delict. It
arose from the fact of filing of the complaint. Hence, the claims for moral and exemplary
damages can only be based on Articles 19, 20, and 21 of the Civil Code.

Malice or bad faith is at the core of Articles 19, 20, and 21. Malice or bad faith implies a
conscious and intentional design to do a wrongful act for a dishonest purpose or moral
obliquity. Such must be substantiated by evidence.

There is no adequate proof that ABS-CBN was inspired by malice or bad faith. It was
honestly convinced of the merits of its cause after it had undergone serious negotiations
culminating in its formal submission of a draft contract. Settled is the rule that the
adverse result of an action does not per se make the action wrongful and subject the
actor to damages, for the law could not have meant to impose a penalty on the right to
litigate. If damages result from a person’s exercise of a right, it is damnum absque
injuria ("loss or damage without injury").

You might also like