Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

Based on the facts provided, choose a side and advocate either for Mini Bar Inc.

or the Royal
Club. Use the following databank of laws and jurisprudence as resources.
The Revised Penal Code

Art. 286. Grave coercions. The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos
shall be imposed upon any person who, without authority of law, shall, by means of violence,
prevent another from doing something not prohibited by law, or compel him to do something
against his will, whether it be right or wrong.
If the coercion be committed for the purpose of compelling another to perform any religious act
or to prevent him from so doing, the penalty next higher in degree shall be imposed.

Art. 287. Light coercions. Any person who, by means of violence, shall seize anything belonging
to his debtor for the purpose of applying the same to the payment of the debt, shall suffer the
penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum period and a fine equivalent to the value of the thing, but
in no case less than 75 pesos.
Any other coercions or unjust vexations shall be punished by arresto menor or a fine ranging from
5 pesos to 200 pesos, or both.
The New Civil Code
Art. 1306. The contracting parties may establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as
they may deem convenient, provided they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public
order, or public policy.
Art. 1308. The contract must bind both contracting parties; its validity or compliance cannot be left
to the will of one of them.
The three elements of grave coercion are: [1] that any person be prevented by another
from doing something not prohibited by law, or compelled to do something against his will, be it
right or wrong; [2] that the prevention or compulsion be effected by violence, either by material
force or such display of it as would produce intimidation and control the will of the offended party,
and [3] that the person who restrained the will and liberty of another had no right to do so, or, in
other words, that the restraint was not made under authority of law or in the exercise of a lawful
- Jose Pepito Timoner vs. The People of the Philippines and the Honorable Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. L-62050, 25 November 1983
Undoubtedly, petitioner is guilty of breach of contract. Breach of contract is defined as the
failure without legal reason to comply with the terms of a contract. It is also defined as the failure,
without legal excuse, to perform any promise which forms the whole or part of the contract.
- R.S. Tomas, Inc. vs. Rizal Cement Company, Inc., G.R. No. 173155, 21 March 2012

Unjust vexation exists even without the element of restraint or compulsion for the reason
that the term is broad enough to include any human conduct which, although not productive of
some physical or material harm, would unjustly annoy or irritate an innocent person The
paramount question [in a prosecution for unjust vexation] is whether the offender's act causes
annoyance, irritation, torment, distress, or disturbance to the mind of the person to whom it is
- Renato Baleros, Jr. vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 138033, 30 January 2007
Good faith is a good defense to a charge for unjust vexation because good faith negates
- People v. Reyes, 60 Phil. 369 (1934).
[T]he state carries the burden of proof in establishing the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt, and it is not incumbent upon him to disprove his guilt. If the state fails in its
burden the accused must be discharged.
- People of the Philippines vs. Dionisio Tadepa y Meriquillo, G.R. No. 100354, 26 May
The main purpose of the law penalizing coercion and unjust vexation is precisely to
enforce the principle that no person may take the law into his hands and that our government is
one of law, not of men. It is unlawful for any person to take into his own hands the administration
of justice.
- Melchor G. Maderazo vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 165065, 26 September 2006
On the contrary, the case of Barbasa v. Tuquero, applies. In Barbasa, the lessor, together
with the head of security and several armed guards, disconnected the electricity in the stalls
occupied by the complainants-lessees because of the latters failure to pay the back rentals. The
Court held that there was no violence, force or the display of it as would produce intimidation
upon the lessees employees when the cutting off of electricity was effected. On the contrary, the
Court found that it was done peacefully and that the guards were there not to intimidate them but
to prevent any untoward or violent event from occurring in the exercise of the lessors right under
the contract. We reach the same conclusion in this case.
- Joseph Anthony M. Alejandro, Firdausi I.Y. Abbas, et al. vs. Atty. Jose A. Bernas, et al.,
G.R. No. 179243. September 7, 2011

The freedom of contract is both a constitutional and statutory right. A contract is the law
between the parties and courts have no choice but to enforce such contract as long as it is not
contrary to law, morals, good customs and against public policy.
- Rolando C. Rivera vs. Solidbank Corporation, G.R. No. 163269, 19 April 2006