Complaint For Unjust Vexation - Wei

 

Republic of the Philippines DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Office of the City Prosecutor City of Manila

WEI LIN ONG, a.k.a. DAVID ONG, Complainant. NPS Docket No…………  Versus

FOR UNJUST VEXATION

ART. 287(2) Revised Penal Code

HELEN S. MOLANO, JEREMIAH ANDREW E. ECLARINAL, and JESSIE JOHN P. GIMENEZ, Respondents. x------------------------------------------x

AFFIDAVIT-COMPLAINT WEI LIN ONG, a.k.a. David Ong,   Taiwanese citizen, 65 years of age, with residence and address at City Fishport, Barangay Matahimik, Puerto Princesa City, Palawan, where I may be served processes, pleadings, and orders, being first sworn, on oath, depose and say:

1.  That I am charging HELEN S. MOLANO, JEREMIAH ANDREW E. ECLARINAL  and JESSIE JOHN P. GIMENEZ  for the criminal act of Unjust Vexation, penalized under paragraph 2, Article 287 of the Revised Penal Code.    1

2.  Respondent HELEN S. MOLANO, sued hereunder in her capacity as managing officer of ROYAL INSTITUTION PTE LTD, SINGAPORE, being the named OWNER-LESSOR   of UNIT 21-O of the Legaspi Tower 300, Vito Cruz corner Roxas Blvd., Malate, City of Manila. 11

 Art. 287. Par 2. Any other coercions or unjust vexations shall be punished punished by arresto menor or a fine ranging from 5 pesos to 200 pesos or both.

 

 AFFIDAVIT-COMPLAINT OF WEI LIN ONG

P a g e  | 2

3.  Respondent JEREMIAH ANDREW E. ECLARINAL, sued hereunder in his capacity as apparent agent of ROYAL INSTITUTION PTE LTD, SINGAPORE , for his active participation in unduly requesting for the immediate disconnection of the electric power service and water service utilities for Unit 21-O. 4.  Respondent JESSIE JOHN P. GIMENEZ, sued herein in his capacity as Chairman and President of Legaspi Towers 300 residents association, for having ordered the immediate disconnection of the electricity and water supply services for Unit 21-O upon unverified request of respondent Eclarinal. 5.  I learned that in a letter dated June 22, 2018, Respondent Eclarinal sent a letter to Atty. JESSIE JOHN P. GIMENEZ, urging the latter to order the immediate disconnection of the electric power and water utility services to Unit 21-O, on the pretext that the “coverage of their   {the lessee’s) payment lessee’s) payment for the unit is until until June 16, 2018.” (ANNEX A) A) 6.  That without verifying the validity of the request made, Respondent GIMENEZ yielded to said request by ordering the immediate disconnection of the electric and water services to UNIT 21-O. 7.  As a businessman and the beneficial owner of the lease rights over UNIT 21-O, I have introduced valuable improvements and fixtures, both necessary and ornamental, in the leased premises, with the consent and personal knowledge of Respondents.

 

8. That, while the LEASE AGREEMENT  provided for monthly rent and payment of electrical and water service incorporated in the monthly charged association dues, the term of the lease and its renewal was completely under the exclusive discretion of the lessor . (ANNEX B) 9.  THAT, the high handed order to immediately disconnect the service utility lines for UNIT 21-O, without giving prior notice thereof to Complainant, directly caused his embarrassment and a besmirched reputation; said wanton, unlawful, and wilful disregard of the LESSEE’S right to the peaceful possession and use of the premises until its proper termination.

 

 AFFIDAVIT-COMPLAINT OF WEI LIN ONG

P a g e  | 3

10.  On June 24, 2018, complainant had some visitors from mainland China to finalize their business deals amounting to Hundreds of Millions, to his consternation, dismay and mortification, when he together with his visitors went to his office, found out of the utility service disconnection. He had lost face before his visitors and probably at the risk of losing the  business transaction in view of the unjust acts of the respondents. 11.  I was counselled that the High Court, commenting on the power of the public utility service provider to exclude any person from its service, in  Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System v. Act Theatre, Inc.,  states  states –   –    2

“Concededly, the petitioner, as  as  the owner of the utility providing water supply to certain consumers including the respondent, had the right to exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof. However, the exercise of the right is not without limitations. Having the right

should notbebe confused right is to exercised.   with the manner by which such “Art. 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.”  faith.”   “When a right is exercised in a manner which discards these norms, resulting in damage to another, a legal wrong is committed for which actor can be held accountable.   In this case, the petitioner failed to act with justice and give respondent what is due to it when petitioner unceremoniously cut off respondent water  service connection.” (Emphasis and the underscoring supplied.) supplied.)  12.  I was counselled further that in a more recent jurisprudence,  Racelis vs. Spouses Germil and Rebecca Javier ,3 the Supreme Court expounded on the obligation of lessors to maintain the lessees in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the leased premises –  premises  –   “A contract of lease is a ‘consensual, bilateral, onerous and commutative contract by which the owner temporarily grants 2 3 GR

No. 147076, June 17, 2004.   Victoria N. Racelis, in her capacity as administrator, versus Spouses Germil Javier and Rebecca Javier, G.R. Javier,  G.R. No. 189609, January 29, 2018, Third Division, Leonen, J.

 

 AFFIDAVIT-COMPLAINT OF WEI LIN ONG

P a g e  | 4

the use of his property to another who undertakes to pay rent therefor. “x x x  x  “The failure to maintain the lessee in the peaceful and adequate enjoyment of the property leased does not contemplate all acts 4

of disturbance .  Racelis vs. Spouses Javier struck down the act of the lessor of “disconnecting the electrical service over the leased premises as not just an act of physical disturbance but one that was meant to remove the respondents from the leased premises and disturb their legal possession as lessees.” lessees.” Although in  Racelis vs. Javier, there had  been a valid agreement to terminate the contract of lease before the disconnection of electrical service over the leased premises, in the instant case however, there was none. Instead, the termination was unilateral and purely potestative on the part of the lessor; perforce, it was oppressive, void and ineffective.

13.  Given the extraordinary circumstances mentioned above, complainant intends to claim in the same criminal case any and all possible civil liabilities as provided for in Articles 100, 102 and 103 of the Revised Penal Code from the respondents’ criminal act, including, but not limited to: a.  Moral damages in the amount of Php 1,000,000.00,  b.  Exemplary damages in the amount of Php 1,000,000.00, and c.  Attorney Attorney’’s Fees in the amount of Php 250,000.00. d. The cost of suit. 14.  Accordingly, Complainant is executing this Complaint Affidavit  for  for the purpose of attesting to the truth of the foregoing statements and charge the respondents HELEN S. MOLANO, JEREMIAH ANDREW E. ECLARINAL, and JESSIE JOHN P. GIMENEZ, with UNJUST VEXATION, as provided under paragraph 2, Article 287 of the Revised Penal Code.

IN WITNESS HEREOF, I hereunto set my hand this 20 th day of July, 2018, in the City of Manila.  

4

 See Goldstein vs. Roces, 34 Phil. P hil. 562, (1916)[Per C.J. Arellano, Second Division].

 

 AFFIDAVIT-COMPLAINT OF WEI LIN ONG

P a g e  | 5

WEI LIN ONG, a.k.a. DAVID ONG  Affiant-Complainant SUBSCRIBED and sworn to before me this 20 TH  of JULY 2018, in the City of Manila. I certify that I have personally examined the affiant and am satisfied that he understood voluntarily executed the same. his Affidavit  –   Complaint and

Administering Officer