NAVARRA v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN
G.R. No. 176291 | December 4, 2009
Supreme Court of the Philippines — Decision by Associate Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales
I. Facts
1. Parties and Context
Petitioner: Jorge B. Navarra, President of Far East Network of Integrated Circuit Subcontractors Corp. (FENICS).
Respondents: Officials and personnel of Food Terminal, Inc. (FTI) — specifically Samuel Namanama (Head, Legal Department), Danilo Medina (Senior Manager), and Felixberto Lazaro (Legal Assistant).
The dispute arose from an expired lease of FENICS of FTI’s premises in Taguig (1995–2002).
2. Incident Leading to Complaint
On the night of September 16, 2002, armed security personnel purportedly under FTI’s authority forcibly entered the leased premises, compelled two custodians to leave, and welded the gates.
The following day, FENICS employees were denied entry; FTI personnel explained the takeover was due to unpaid rentals and alleged lease violations.
3. Procedural Posture at the Ombudsman
Petitioner filed a complaint for grave coercion, malicious mischief, and/or grave threats against the private respondents before the Office of the Ombudsman.
The Ombudsman dismissed the complaint for lack of probable cause, effectively declining to file criminal charges.
4. Relief Sought before the Supreme Court
Petition via Certiorari (Rule 65) to annul the Ombudsman’s Order dismissing the complaint, on the ground of grave abuse of discretion.
II. Issues
At the core of the petition were questions of law regarding:
1. Whether the forcible entry and exclusion of FENICS personnel from the leased premises without a court order constituted grave coercion under the Revised Penal Code (Art. 286).
2. Whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint for lack of probable cause.
III. Holding
The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the Ombudsman’s Order, and directed the Ombudsman to file an Information for Grave Coercion against the private respondents.
IV. Rationale
1. Self-Help Evictions Are Unauthorized Without Judicial Process
The Court reaffirmed the settled principle that no person may enforce his claimed rights by force or self-help — especially when such acts involve violence, intimidation, or deprivation of possession — in the absence of judicial authority. The maxim that no man may take the law into his own hands was invoked: one cannot enforce rights by violent means, save only in narrow exceptions (e.g., necessary defense), which were not present here.
2. Elements of Grave Coercion
In applying the elements of grave coercion under Art. 286, the Court noted:
Unlawful Preventive or Compulsive Conduct: Respondents prevented petitioner and his employees from entering the premises — a right not prohibited by law.
Use of Violence or Intimidation: Armed guards, the welding shut of gates, destruction of locks, and exclusion of personnel constituted force or intimidation sufficient to restrain free will.
Absence of Legal Authority: The takeover was effected without any court order or other authority of law. Respondents’ claimed right to re-enter due to rent arrears did not itself confer a right to forceful eviction.
These factors satisfied the well-established tests for probable cause in criminal complaints: facts sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime was committed and that the respondents were probably guilty thereof.
3. Misplaced Reliance on UP v. de los Angeles
Respondents cited UP v. de los Angeles to justify extraordinary self-help to mitigate damages without awaiting judicial remedy. The Court distinguished that case, clarifying that reliance thereon is misplaced where the acts involve violence, threats, or intimidation compelling de facto surrender of possession. The mere failure to pay rent does not legitimize extrajudicial uses of force.
4. Grave Abuse of Discretion by the Ombudsman
The Supreme Court further underscored that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in not recognizing the existence of probable cause, given the uncontroverted allegations of violence and lack of legal authority to dispossess the occupants.
V. Legal Principles and Implications
1. Prohibition Against Self-Help Evictions: The decision reiterates the constitutional principle that all persons are entitled to due process of law, and private parties cannot resolve property or possessory disputes through force or intimidation without judicial intervention.
2. Forcible Entry vs. Ejectment: Although this case did not directly involve an ejectment action, it underscores the impropriety of self-executed dispossession. Ejectment, unlawful detainer, or forcible entry proceedings must be pursued in court, and execution of judgments obtained thereunder is the exclusive province of the judicial process and law enforcement officers.
3. Probable Cause in Criminal Complaints: In determining probable cause for crimes like grave coercion, courts and prosecutors must consider whether the complained acts represent deprivation of another’s will or liberty by violence or intimidation absent lawful authority. The mere existence of a civil dispute (e.g., unpaid rent) does not negate the force element.
VI. Conclusion
Navarra v. Office of the Ombudsman stands as a controlling authority that self-help evictions executed by force, intimidation, or threats, absent judicial process, may constitute criminally punishable acts — particularly grave coercion — and that dismissals of such complaints by the Ombudsman without adequate consideration of probable cause may be corrected by certiorari.
---
Assisted by ChatGPT, January 1, 2026.
