The Supreme Court has upheld the ruling of a trial court dismissing the civil suit filed by GMA Network Films Inc. against a movie licensor and supplier.
The high court’s Second Division, through Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, granted the petition filed by Ricardo Honrado questioning a decision of the Court of Appeals that reversed and set aside a ruling of the Quezon City Regional Trial Court, which dismissed the case against him for allegedly violating a TV rights agreement with GMA Films.
“The decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals are set aside. The decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City (Branch 223) is reinstated with the modification that the award of attorney’s fees is deleted,” the high court ruled.
The controversy arose when GMA Films entered into an agreement with Honrado, as licensor of 36 films, which granted to GMA Films, for a fee of P60.75 million, the exclusive right to telecast the films for a designated period.
The parties also agreed to submit the films for review by the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB).
GMA Films filed a complaint for payment and damages against Honrado with the lower court after he refused to refund payment for the movies “Evangeline Katorse” and “Bubot” in May 2003, after these were banned for airing by the MTRCB.
Honrado tried to replace the two movies with “Winasak na Pangarap,” which was also deemed unacceptable for airing.
The RTC dismissed the suit against the movie supplier and ordered the network to pay attorney’s fees worth P100,000, after giving credence to Honrado’s defense that he replaced the movies.
GMA Films filed an appeal with the appellate court, which granted GMA’s petition and ordered Honrado to pay P2 million plus interest, damages, fees and litigation costs.
In ruling against the movie supplier, the appellate court found that GMA Films was authorized under the agreement to reject
“Evangeline Katorse.”
The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court’s ruling and instead upheld the lower court’s decision, but found the award of attorney’s fees to petitioner improper.