Lee vs CA provides the background of a case where a private respondent filed a complaint against a petitioner bank manager. The respondent claimed she was shouted at and threatened with criminal charges by the petitioner unless she returned money from an allegedly forged check. The court ruled the petitioner was not guilty of grave coercion, as demanding payment and threatening legal action is a valid collection practice, even if the threatened claim is later found unjust or unlawful, as long as the creditor believes it is right to do so. Threatening criminal charges to enforce a civil claim is also allowed under Philippine law if the underlying claim is just or legal.
Lee vs CA provides the background of a case where a private respondent filed a complaint against a petitioner bank manager. The respondent claimed she was shouted at and threatened with criminal charges by the petitioner unless she returned money from an allegedly forged check. The court ruled the petitioner was not guilty of grave coercion, as demanding payment and threatening legal action is a valid collection practice, even if the threatened claim is later found unjust or unlawful, as long as the creditor believes it is right to do so. Threatening criminal charges to enforce a civil claim is also allowed under Philippine law if the underlying claim is just or legal.
Lee vs CA provides the background of a case where a private respondent filed a complaint against a petitioner bank manager. The respondent claimed she was shouted at and threatened with criminal charges by the petitioner unless she returned money from an allegedly forged check. The court ruled the petitioner was not guilty of grave coercion, as demanding payment and threatening legal action is a valid collection practice, even if the threatened claim is later found unjust or unlawful, as long as the creditor believes it is right to do so. Threatening criminal charges to enforce a civil claim is also allowed under Philippine law if the underlying claim is just or legal.
Lee vs CA provides the background of a case where a private respondent filed a complaint against a petitioner bank manager. The respondent claimed she was shouted at and threatened with criminal charges by the petitioner unless she returned money from an allegedly forged check. The court ruled the petitioner was not guilty of grave coercion, as demanding payment and threatening legal action is a valid collection practice, even if the threatened claim is later found unjust or unlawful, as long as the creditor believes it is right to do so. Threatening criminal charges to enforce a civil claim is also allowed under Philippine law if the underlying claim is just or legal.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 1
Lee vs CA duress even if the claim proves to be unfounded so long as
the creditor believes that it was his right to do so.”
G.R. No. 90423. September 6, 1991 The applicable provision will be of Article 1335 of the Civil Francis Lee – petitioner vs Court of Appeals, People of the Code that provides: Philippines and Pelagia Paulino De Chin - respondents “There is intimidation when one of the Facts of the Case: contracting parties is compelled by a reasonable and well- grounded fear of an imminent and grave evil upon his Private respondent – Mana Pelagia Paulino De person or property or upon the person or property of his Chin filed a complaint against the petitioner. On June 20, spouse, descendants or ascendants, to give his consent. 1984 at about 10:00 o’clock in the morning, the complainant Mana Pelagia Paulino de Chin, 23 years old To determine the degree of the intimidation, the was fetched from her house by a bank employee upon the age, sex and condition of the person shall be borne in mind. instruction of Branch Manager Francis Lee of Pacific Banking Corporation. The latter confronted the former A threat to enforce one’s claim through about a forged Midland National Bank Cashier Check which competent authority, if the claim is just or legal, does not the latter allegedly deposited in the account of Honorio vitiate consent.” Carpio. During the said confrontation, petitioner has been shouting respondent – Pelagia with piercing looks and The complaint filed does not vitiate consent for threatened to file charges against her unless she returned lack of intimidation, the most telling proof of the absence the entire money equivalent to the alleged forged cashier’s of intimidation was the fact that the complainant refused to check. sign the promissory note in spite of alleged threat.
Accordingly, the complainant was caused to sign
a prepare withdrawal slip and an affidavit prepared by the bank’s lawyer, where she was made to admit that she had swindled the bank and had return the money equivalent of the spurious check. RTC and MTC ruled in favor of the complainant; hence, petition for review of certiorari was filed by petitioner – Francis Lee for the decision accusing him of grave coercion and denying such accusation.
Issue:
Whether or not the acts of petitioner in simply
“shouting at the complainant with piercing looks” and “threats to file charges against her” are sufficient to convict him of the crime of grave coercion?
Ruling:
The accused is acquitted of the crime of grave
coercion. Petitioner’s demand that the private respondent return the proceeds of the check accompanied by a threat to file a criminal charge is not improper and will not fall under article 286 of the RPC. There is nothing unlawful on the threat to sue. Furthermore, the court ruled that: “It is a practice followed not only by banks but even by individuals to demand payment of their accounts with the threat that upon failure to do so an action would be instituted in court. Such a threat is proper within the realm of the law as a means to enforce collection. Such threat cannot constitute
