Alejandro v. Bernas
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Joseph Anthony M. Alejandro leased a condominium unit and subsequently sub-leased it to other petitioners for use as a law office. A defect in the air-conditioning unit led petitioners to suspend rental payments. The lessor-seller, Oakridge Properties, Inc. (OPI), instead of addressing the defect, initiated an ejectment case against Alejandro. During the pendency of this case, the Discovery Center Condominium Corporation (DCCC) was organized, and Fernando Amor was appointed Property Manager. 2. Procedural History: OPI, allegedly through respondent Atty. Marie Lourdes Sia-Bernas, padlocked the unit on June 10, 2004, despite a Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) order to remove the padlock. The unit was again padlocked on August 11, 2004, allegedly by respondent Atty. Jose Bernas, with the assistance of Amor and Eduardo Aguilar, head of security, along with unidentified security officers. Electricity and water were also cut off. The MeTC ruled in favor of Alejandro in the ejectment case, but this was reversed by the Regional Trial Court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). Petitioners filed a criminal complaint for grave coercion, which the Office of the City Prosecutor dismissed against Atty. Bernas and Sia-Bernas, but charged Amor and Aguilar with unjust vexation. Petitioners' appeal to the Department of Justice (DOJ) was dismissed for technicality, and their subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied. The CA affirmed the DOJ's dismissal, finding no probable cause for grave coercion. 3. The Petition: This petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeks to reverse the CA's decision and resolution. Petitioners argue that the CA erred in denying their petition despite a prima facie case of grave coercion, questioning whether the ruling in Sy v. Department of Justice is applicable, given the admitted padlocking and court orders to remove it. They also contend that grave coercion can be committed through intimidation alone, without violence, and that the DOJ's dismissal of their appeal on technicality was anomalous. Respondents argue that grave abuse of discretion is not a proper issue in a Rule 45 petition and that the CA correctly found no probable cause for grave coercion, as the mere presence of security guards does not constitute intimidation.
Issue(s)
Whether the ruling in Sy v. Department of Justice is applicable to the instant case, given the evidence of padlocking, admission thereof, and the court order to remove the padlock; and whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, when it denied the petition despite the showing of a prima facie case of grave coercion. Whether the Department of Justice's resolution dismissing the appeal on a fabricated ground necessitates judicial review. Whether grave coercion can be committed through intimidation alone, without violence; and on the charge of unjust vexation.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The Court of Appeals Decision dated May 23, 2007 and Resolution dated August 8, 2007 in CA-G.R. SP No. 94229 are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On Sy v. Secretary of Justice and the CA's alleged grave abuse of discretion: The Court distinguished the present case from Sy v. Secretary of Justice, where the presence of armed men with demolition tools created a clear prima facie showing of intimidation, finding the case analogous to Barbasa v. Tuquero. The Court affirmed the CA's ratiocination regarding the dismissal of the appeal before the Department of Justice (DOJ), noting that the motion for reconsideration allowed for a re-evaluation of the merits, leading to the same conclusion of no probable cause. The CA's review also encompassed the merits of the probable cause determination, not just the procedural aspect. On the propriety of the DOJ's dismissal and the determination of probable cause for grave coercion: The Court reiterated that the determination of probable cause is primarily entrusted to the DOJ, and courts generally do not interfere unless there is grave abuse of discretion. The Court found that while respondents padlocked the unit and cut off facilities, preventing petitioners from occupying it, the crucial element of violence, threat, or intimidation for grave coercion was not sufficiently established. Petitioners' Joint Affidavit-Complaint did not allege violence or threat, and the belated claim of intimidation by the mere presence of security guards was deemed insufficient. Furthermore, the failure to attach required documents, as per DOJ rules, rendered the appeal insufficient in form and subject to dismissal. On the element of intimidation for grave coercion and the charge of unjust vexation: The Court clarified that intimidation requires a reasonable and well-grounded fear of an imminent and grave evil. While material violence is not indispensable, intense fear restricting the exercise of will is necessary. In this case, the mere presence of security guards was found insufficient to cause such fear. The Court found that the DOJ's order to file an information for unjust vexation against Amor and Aguilar was in order, as the elements of unjust vexation were adequately alleged in the complaint.
Main Doctrine
The mere presence of security guards during the padlocking of a leased unit and the cutting off of its facilities, without any overt act of intimidation or violence, is insufficient to establish the element of intimidation required for the crime of grave coercion. However, such acts may constitute unjust vexation.