Private respondents also cited Article 21 of the lease contract between FTI and FENICS which

provides:

It is expressly agreed that if the rent hereby stipulated shall be unpaid after becoming payable,
whether formally demanded or not, or if any covenant herein contravened shall not be performed or
observed, then in any of said cases, it shall be lawful for the LESSOR to re-enter the leased
premises and the lease shall automatically terminated, without prejudice, however, to the right of
action of the LESSOR with respect to any covenant herein contained. The LESSOR shall in such
case, be entitled likewise to forfeit improvements on the leased premises without any obligation to
pay the value thereof.5 (Underscoring supplied)

By Resolution of February 22, 2005, Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer Janet Cabigas-
Vejerano found probable cause to hale private respondents into court for grave coercion under
Article 286 of the Revised Penal Code6 under the following disquisition:

The strong assertion by the respondents that FENICS property was voluntarily opened to them
cannot stand in the light of the surrounding circumstances that precipitated the take-over of FENICS
premises. The undeniable facts, to wit: the circumstance of nighttime, the overwhelming number of
armed respondents as against two (2) caretakers of FENICS marching at the compound, their failure
to notify complainant of the date of actual repossession, and their lack of any court order authorizing
their action, convince this Office that respondents truly abused their authority. This notwithstanding
any rightful claim that FTI may have over the subject property. No man is above the law. It is
elementary even to some respondents from the FTI legal department that any such kind of
repossession requires a court order to be implemented by the proper officer of the court, or at the
very least a notice to the party concerned, provisions in their contract notwithstanding, The purported
witness, a Barangay Tanod, did not even submit his account of what actually transpired. He would
have then attested to whether FENICS was indeed invited to observe the inventory undertaken. It is
unfortunate that respondents, who are government employees at that, took the matter into their own
hands.

Under Article 286 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) the crime of Grave Coercion in "imposed upon
any person who, without any authority of law, shall, by means of violence, threats, or intimidation,
prevent another from doing something not prohibited by law, or compel him to do something against
his will, whether it be right or wrong."

On the other hand, Grave Threats under Article 282, RPC, is imposed upon "any person who shall
threaten another with the infliction upon the person, honor or property of the latter or of his family of
any wrong amounting to a crime."

xxxx

While it may be true that FTI had the right to collect payment for the outstanding obligation of the
company complainant represents, the immediate actual and imminent force employed by the
respondents to compel complainants caretakers to leave their posts at FENICS, and to prevent
complainant as President of FENICS as well as all other officers and employees of FENICS from
entering the compound, truly amount to coercion.

Notably, the presence of conspiracy in the present case is clear as it is founded on a firm basis by
sizing up the concerted action of all the respondents who have common criminal design and
purpose, which is to repossess the FENICS compound, and they in fact succeeded. 7 (Citation
omitted)
The Ombudsman, on recommendation of Over-all Deputy Ombudsman Margarito P. Gervacio, Jr.,
dismissed petitioner’s complaint, however, by Order of September 1, 2005. 8

In dismissing the complaint, public respondent held:

Records show that respondent Namanama sent several demand letters to Mr. Jorge Navarra, the
herein complainant, reminding the latter of their indebtedness to FTI and at the same time warning
him that in case of non-payment, FTI would resort to a more drastic action.

In the same token, [in] the Compromise Agreement entered into between the FTI and FENICS there
is a proviso which states:

8. In the event that FENICS shall default in at least three (3) consecutive monthly amortization
payments on its rental arrearages or one (1) semestral or annual payment of its current rentals, FTI
shall be entitled to rescind the lease contracts without need of judicial action or intervention and all
unpaid rentals…"

In like manner, respondent Lazaro made mention that not only FENICS refused to comply with the
terms agreed upon in its Compromise Agreement with FTI but also subleased a portion of the leased
premises without approval of FTI.

On their entering FENICS premises, respondent Lorenzo [sic] argued that they only exercised their
authority to re-enter the premises because FENICS refused to pay its rentals and due to its blatant
violations of the terms and conditions of their Contract of Lease.

Indeed, while respondent may have acted in such a way, the same could be said to have been done
in good faith and without any intention of doing harm against their adversaries.

From the narrations given by the parties to this case, it has been established that FENICS had been
indebted to FTI in an aggregate sum of more than P35M and the check it paid the latter even
bounced; [a]lso FENICS even subleased its leased premises in violation of its contract of lease.
Thus, the long delay in its payment of its obligation to FTI could also be said to have caused the
latter undue injury. To resort to court at that time could even prolong the situation inasmuch as court
processes nowadays are also delayed. Hence, in order to protect FTI’s interest, respondents herein
have to resort to some extraordinary measures as what was done under the circumstances. 9