Practice question
A third person knowingly persuades a contracting party to withhold agreed royalties and orchestrates falsified records to frustrate the agreement. All other interference elements are proved. The third person invokes relativity because it did not sign. Which is correct?
- Nonparty status does not defeat the independent Article 1314 claim for proved malicious interference
- Only signatories can ever owe damages
- Falsification supplies automatic legal justification
- Every royalty dispute is a criminal conviction
- The contract binds the stranger solely as an original party
Legal references
- Tuna Processors, Inc. v. Frescomar Corp., G.R. Nos.226445 and 226631, February 27, 2024, MAIN en banc decision, tortious interference: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2024/feb2024/gr_226445_2024.html
- Civil Code, Articles 1159,1191,1249,1308,1314-1316,1319,1322-1326,1933-1934,1962 and1980: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1949/ra_386_1949.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.