CA orders ex-SC justice to pay remaining prize money for 1997 Espinosa fight

The Court of Appeals (CA) has ordered the family of former Supreme Court Associate Justice Minita Chico-Nazario to pay former world boxing champion Luisito Espinosa the remaining prize money for defending his World Boxing Council featherweight title in 1997.

 

In a 29-page decision penned by Associate Justice Ramon Cruz, the CA's Second Division reversed a Regional Trial Court of Manila ruling dismissing Espinosa's complaint for sum of money with damages against the SC justice’s late husband Rodolfo Nazario, former South Cotabato Governor Hilario de Pedro III and Joselito Mondejar, who were the promoters and organizers of his fight.

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

 

Since Rodolfo Nozario has already passed away, the appeals court instead directed his estate and his legal heirs namely his wife, Minita, and their children Roderick Nazario, Rommelious Nazario and Karen Patricia Nazario-Bouzaid, to pay Espinosa $130,349, as well as interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum counted from the date of judicial demand on May 25, 1998 until June 30, 2013; and another interest at the rate of six percent from July 1, 2013 until full satisfaction.

 

The controversy stemmed from the complaint filed by Espinosa together with his manager Joe Koizumi on May 26, 1998 against the promoters and organizers, who entered into a contract for staging of the WBC World Featherweight title bout between the Filipino boxer and contender Carlos Rios of Argentina that was to be held in Koronadal, South Cotabato on Dec. 6, 1997. 

 

Under the contract, De Pedro, Nazario and Mondejar, as local promoters and oorganizers of the title fight, were bound to pay Espinosa's camp the guaranteed purse of US$150,000 and the training expenses of US$10,000.

 

The contract further stipulated that by the end of Oct. 31, 1997, the respondents agreed to pay the boxer the advance of US$50,000 which is one-third of the purse plus the trainiing expenses of US$10,000, totalling to US$60,000.

 

A few days before the scheduled fight, only US$29,651 was paid by the defendants to Espinnosa's camp, which is not even one-half of the US$60,000 which the defendants were supposed to pay in advance.

 

On Dec. 6, 1997, the day of the actual fight, the respondents executed a letter of guarantee promising to pay the balance of Espinosa's purse amounting to US$130,349 on or before Dec. 16, 1997.

 

Espinosa won the fight and despite repeated demands, the promoters and organizers still failed to get the full amount of his purse.

 

In ruling in favor of Espinosa, the CA  gave weight to the letter of guarantee submitted by the boxer as proof of the defendants obligation to pay.

 

"Defendant-appellee Nazario's failure to deny the genuineness and due execution of thee actionable documents appended to the complaint was tantamount to a judicial admmission by him of the genuineness and due execution of those documents," the CA said in holding Nazario's heirs liable to pay Espinosa's camp.

 

"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. 

 

The CA did not give merit to Nazario's defense that he merely signed the agreement as an accommodation party. 

 

"This defense... 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 CA explained. 

 

As for Mondejar, the CA dismissed the case against him since it was established that he was not a signatory in the contract and the letter of guarantee.

 

The CA also 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 plaintiff 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. — RSJ, GMA News