Barbasa v. Tuquero
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Roberto Barbasa, president of Push-Thru Marketing, Inc., leased commercial stalls from Tutuban Properties, Inc. (TPI). Push-Thru Marketing had outstanding obligations for CUSA charges, utilities, and rentals. On July 1, 1999, TPI officers, including private respondents Grace Guarin (Credit and Collection Manager), Nestor Sangalang (Engineering Manager), and Victor Callueng (Head of Security), along with armed guards, disconnected the electricity to petitioner's stalls. Petitioner alleged this was done in a violent and intimidating manner. Procedural History: Petitioner filed a criminal complaint for Grave Coercion against TPI officers and private respondents. The City Prosecutor of Manila found probable cause against private respondents Guarin, Sangalang, and Callueng, and filed an Information. However, the Secretary of Justice reversed this, ordering the dismissal of the case. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Secretary of Justice's resolution, dismissing petitioner's certiorari petition. The appellate court also denied his motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioner assails the Court of Appeals' decision and resolution, arguing that the disconnection of electricity constituted grave coercion.
Issue(s)
Whether the act of disconnecting the supply of electricity to petitioner's stalls and the manner by which it was carried out constitute grave coercion. Whether the presence of armed guards during the disconnection was intended to intimidate petitioner and his employees.
Ruling
The petition is denied for utter lack of merit. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of Grave Coercion: The Court reiterated the three elements of grave coercion: (a) prevention of lawful act or compulsion to do something against one's will; (b) effected by violence or intimidation; and (c) the perpetrator has no right to do so. The Court found that the disconnection of electricity was done peacefully and after written notice to the petitioner. The presence of armed guards was deemed to be for the purpose of preventing untoward events, not for intimidation. The Court emphasized that the Contract of Lease expressly granted TPI the option to cut off power and other utility services in case of failure to pay charges corresponding to three months, until full payment. This was a lawful exercise of a contractual right, negating the element that the restraint was made without authority of law or lawful right. On the issue of intimidation by armed guards: The Court found no sufficient reason to deviate from the findings of the lower courts. It was held that the presence of armed guards was more likely intended to prevent any violent incident during the exercise of TPI's rights under the lease agreement, rather than to intimidate. The Court reasoned that if the intention was to cause violence, the disconnection would have been done unannounced or through less conspicuous means. The peaceful manner of the disconnection and the prior written notice belied any intent to intimidate.
Main Doctrine
The act of disconnecting utility services by a lessor, when expressly granted as an option in the contract of lease due to the lessee's failure to pay outstanding obligations, does not constitute grave coercion, provided it is done peacefully and after due notice, as it is a lawful exercise of a contractual right.