Despite repeated demands, however, he was not paid, which led him to file a complaint against promoters Rodolfo Nazario and Joselito Mondejar, and South Cotabato Governor Hilario de Pedro III.The Manila City Regional Trial Court Branch 173 first dismissed Espinosa's case, which was later reversed by the appellate court.The Court of Appeals ruled that the stipulations in the documentary evidence submitted by respondent bound Rodolfo, who died in 2009, as guarantor to pay the purse.The case against Mondejar was dismissed after the court established he was not a signatory in the agreement and letter of guarantee.
The sad part of his career… Read More »
They filed a motion for reconsideration but this was denied by the court.
5. Espinosa was entitled to a purse of US$130,349.00. To find out more,
1st Filipino Featherweight Champion in the World Boxing Council (WBC, 1995) QUOTE “All I want is to collect my winnings, come home to the Philippines, and be with my children so I can take care of them.” Years before Manny Pacquiao became an international boxing champion, another Filipino boxer brought fame to the Philippines. He is Luisito Espinosa, who won the World Boxing Council featherweight championship match held at Koronadal, South Cotabato on Dec. 6, 1997.
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.Concurring with the ruling were Remedios Salazar-Fernando and Marlene Gonzales-Sison.
Before Manny Pacquaio, Luisito Espinosa and Nonito Donaire made their mark on the boxing world, a Cebuano boxer named Gabriel “Flash” Elorde brought glory to the Philippines.
De Pedro, meanwhile, was absolved by the court for failing to prosecute him on behalf of Espinosa.Espinosa, 52, who finished his career with 47 wins and 13 loss, including 26 knockout victories, has worked several jobs in California and as a boxing trainer in Hong Kong.“I have been waiting for them to tell me when they could give me the money that they didn’t pay me.”Boxing: SC orders late promoter’s heirs to pay Espinosa owed purse money It is news former world champion boxer Luisito Espinosa has long waited to hear.In a decision dated Nov. 13, 2019, and made public Friday, the Supreme Court ordered the heirs of late boxing promoter Rod Nazario to pay $130,349 (P6.6 million) with interest due Espinosa for his world-title fight against Argentina’s Carlos Rios in Koronadal city, South Cotabato, in December 1997.The high court rejected the petition filed by the Nazarios, after the Court of Appeals reversed a 2015 ruling by a Manila regional trial court that dismissed Espinosa’s claim.Nazario’s estate includes his wife, Minita Chico-Nazario, and children Roderick Nazario, Rommel Nazario, and Karen Patricia Nazario-Couzaid.“This case has been pending for many years and the Court would like to put the whole matter to rest. Boxer Luisito Espinosa wins SC case, to get more than P6.5 M - Manila Bulletin
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 appeals court explained.As for Mondejar, the appeals court said it was established that he was not a signatory in the contract and the letter of guarantee, thus, warranting the dismissal of the case against him.On the other hand, the court 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 plaintiffs in 1997, and it has been 18 years for the case to reach this point. The two took their case to the Court of Appeals.The appeals court, in deciding in favor of Espinosa, said Nazario’s allegation that he merely signed the agreement in “name only” and that he merely “noted” the Letter of Guarantee is an implied admission of the due execution and genuineness of the said instrument.“The admission of the genuineness of the said document means that the party whose signature it bears admits that he voluntarily signed the document…,” the appeals court said.“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 appeals court added that Nazario’s defense that he signed the agreement as an “accommodation party” has no merit.“This defense, however, is not readily apparent from a perusal of the contents of the agreement.