Case Digest (G.R. No. 163898)
Facts:
Roberto Barbasa v. Hon. Artemio G. Tuquero, Grace Guarin, Nestor Sangalang, Victor Callueng, G.R. No. 163898, December 23, 2008, Supreme Court Second Division, Quisumbing, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Roberto Barbasa is the president of Push-Thru Marketing, Inc., lessee of several stalls in Tutuban Center, owned by Tutuban Properties, Inc. (TPI). On June 30, 1999, TPI’s Credit and Collection Manager, Grace Guarin, served a notice of disconnection of utilities for unpaid Common Usage and Service Area (CUSA) charges, utilities, electricity and rentals. Barbasa paid the CUSA and utility charges accepted by Guarin but did not pay back rentals.
On July 1, 1999, Guarin, TPI engineering manager Nestor Sangalang, and TPI head of security Victor Callueng, with several armed guards, disconnected the electricity to the stalls occupied by Push-Thru Marketing. Aggrieved, petitioner filed a criminal complaint for grave coercion on July 13, 1999 against TPI and several officers including the three private respondents, alleging the power cut was effectuated “in a violent and intimidating manner” and that armed guards were used to intimidate.
The private respondents submitted counter-affidavits asserting the cut-off was peaceful, performed pursuant to the lease covenants, and followed written notices; they produced interest-penalty reports and demand letters showing substantial unpaid obligations and a contractual penalty clause authorizing utility disconnection after three months’ arrears. Petitioner replied alleging the private respondents ordered the disconnection and asserting payment of the electric bills and ongoing negotiations on rentals; a separate civil suit on rentals was later filed and an injunction issued only after the power had been cut.
The Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila dismissed charges against some respondents but found probable cause against Guarin, Sangalang and Callueng; an Information for grave coercion was filed in court on January 13, 2000. The private respondents appealed that finding to the Secretary of Justice. On August 23, 2000, the Secretary of Justice reversed the City Prosecutor’s resolution and directed the City Prosecutor to move, with leave of court, for dismissal of Criminal Case No. 336630. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration at the DOJ was denied.
Petitioner filed a petition with the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 62610) assailing the Secretary of Justice’s re...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the private respondents’ disconnection of the electricity to petitioner’s stalls, and the manner of its execution, constitute the crime of grave coe...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)