G.R. No. 176291; December 4, 2009
JORGE B. NAVARRA, Petitioner, vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, SAMUEL NAMANAMA, FELIXBERTO LAZARO and DANILO MEDINA, Respondents.

FACTS

Far East Network of Integrated Circuit Subcontractors Corporation (FENICS), represented by its president Jorge B. Navarra (petitioner), leased premises from Food Terminal, Inc. (FTI) in Taguig from 1995 to 2002. On the night of September 16, 2002, before the lease contract expired, armed FTI personnel, including respondents Samuel Namanama (head of FTI’s legal department), Danilo Medina (FTI Senior Manager), and Felixberto Lazaro (FTI Legal Assistant), forcibly took over the FENICS compound. They ejected two FENICS building custodians, welded the gates shut, and prevented FENICS employees from entering. The takeover involved approximately 30 armed FTI policemen, some carrying shotguns, who threatened the custodians and fired a gunshot inside the compound. The following day, respondents continued to bar entry and conducted an inventory inside the premises without FENICS representatives. Petitioner filed a complaint for grave coercion, malicious mischief, and grave threats against respondents before the Office of the Ombudsman. Respondents claimed they acted under orders from FTI superiors and were exercising FTI’s contractual right to rescind the lease and re-enter the premises due to FENICS’s unpaid rental arrearies, citing a Compromise Agreement and Article 21 of the lease contract, which allowed re-entry and automatic termination without judicial action upon default. The Ombudsman initially found probable cause for grave coercion but later dismissed the complaint, ruling that respondents acted in good faith under FTI’s contractual rights.

ISSUE

Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint for grave coercion against respondents.

RULING

Yes, the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari, set aside the Ombudsman’s dismissal order, and directed the filing of an Information for Grave Coercion under Article 286 of the Revised Penal Code against respondents. The Court held that the existence of a contractual right to rescind or re-enter does not justify the use of violence, threats, or intimidation. Respondents’ actions—including armed takeover, welding of gates, ejection of custodians under threat of harm, and prevention of entry—constituted grave coercion, as they employed immediate and imminent force to compel FENICS personnel to leave and prevent them from exercising their right to possess the premises. The Court emphasized that extrajudicial rescission must be exercised peacefully and without breaching the peace; otherwise, it becomes unlawful. Citing Bustos v. Lucero, the Court reiterated that a person claiming a right to property cannot take the law into their own hands by using force or intimidation. Respondents’ reliance on University of the Philippines v. de los Angeles was misplaced, as that case did not involve violence or coercion. Good faith and lack of harmful intent are matters of defense to be raised during trial, not in preliminary investigation. Thus, the Ombudsman gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the complaint despite clear evidence of coercion.