Scribd
Upload
47 views2 pages

G.R. No. L-32066. August 06, 1979 (Case Brief - Digest)

This case discusses a licensing agreement related to a movie about a political figure from the 1950s. The movie's producer claimed duress in signing the agreement, while the political figure's family argued they had rights over his life story. The Court affirmed the agreement's validity, finding no duress and that freedom of expression must sometimes yield to privacy rights.

Uploaded by

joseph1294
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
47 views2 pages

G.R. No. L-32066. August 06, 1979 (Case Brief - Digest)

This case discusses a licensing agreement related to a movie about a political figure from the 1950s. The movie's producer claimed duress in signing the agreement, while the political figure's family argued they had rights over his life story. The Court affirmed the agreement's validity, finding no duress and that freedom of expression must sometimes yield to privacy rights.

Uploaded by

joseph1294
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

G.R. No. L-32066.

August 06, 1979 (Case Brief / Digest)

**Title: Manuel Lagunzad vs. Maria Soto Vda. de Gonzales**

**Facts:**

This case stems from an agreement related to the making of a movie entitled “The Moises
Padilla Story,” by Manuel Lagunzad under MML Productions. The movie drew from a book
depicting the life and murder of Moises Padilla, a political figure in the Philippines during
the 1950s. Maria Soto Vda. de Gonzales, the mother of Moises Padilla, objected to the
portrayal of her son’s life and her family’s life in the movie without consent. On October 5,
1961, after demands for changes and compensation were made by Gonzales, a “Licensing
Agreement” was signed, giving Lagunzad the right to proceed with the movie in exchange
for payment and royalties to Gonzales.

Despite this agreement, Lagunzad executed payment of the initial sum but contested further
obligations, claiming the agreement was void due to duress and lack of consent on his part.
Gonzales brought suit for the unpaid balance and for a royalty based on the proceeds from
the movie. The trial court ruled in favor of Gonzales, ordering Lagunzad to pay the
remaining balance and royalties and to render a full account of the movie’s proceeds. The
Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.

**Issues:**

1. Whether the “Licensing Agreement” was valid or void due to alleged duress, intimidation,
and undue influence.
2. Whether the agreement contravened public policy by infringing upon the freedom of
speech and expression.
3. Whether Gonzales had a valid property right over the life story of Moises Padilla, despite
him being a public figure.
4. The applicability and effect of the agreement on the parties involved.
5. The validity of requiring an accounting of the movie’s proceeds.

**Court’s Decision:**

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals decision, holding the “Licensing
Agreement” valid. The Court reasoned that the facts did not substantiate Lagunzad’s claim
of duress or undue influence. It also held that the agreement did not infringe on the freedom
of speech and expression, as freedom of expression is not absolute and must sometimes
yield to the right to privacy and other societal values. Furthermore, the Court determined

© 2024 - batas.org | 1
G.R. No. L-32066. August 06, 1979 (Case Brief / Digest)

that Gonzales, as the next of kin to Moises Padilla, held a valid interest in his life story’s
portrayal, which justified the execution of the Licensing Agreement.

**Doctrine:**

The Supreme Court reiterated that freedom of expression is not an absolute right and must
be balanced against other rights, such as an individual’s right to privacy. It also affirmed the
validity of agreements created under the pressure of impending obligations, provided they
do not contravene law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy.

**Class Notes:**

1. **Duress and Consent:** Agreement signed under pressing circumstances may still be
valid if not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy (Art. 1306,
Civil Code).
2. **Freedom of Expression vs. Right to Privacy:** The right to freedom of expression is not
absolute and can be limited when it collides with the right to privacy, especially concerning
the portrayal of private individuals or matters.
3. **Property Right in Life Stories:** An individual may have a protectable interest in the
portrayal of their life or that of their next of kin, especially concerning private aspects not
within public knowledge or domain.
4. **Validity of “Licensing Agreement”:** An agreement providing for consent and
compensation for the use of someone’s life story for commercial purposes is enforceable if
duly entered into and not contrary to legal prohibitions.

**Historical Background:**

The backdrop of this case is an era where the life stories of political figures began to
emerge as significant cultural and commercial phenomena, often leading to conflicts
between freedom of expression and individual privacy rights. The case highlights the
evolving understanding of public figures’ rights and the limitations of freedom of expression
in the context of Philippine law.

© 2024 - batas.org | 2

You might also like