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 by arresto menor or a fine ranging
from 5 pesos to 200 pesos or both.
 AFFIDAVIT-COMPLAINT OF WEI LIN ONG Page |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 for the
unit is until June 16, 2018.” (ANNEX 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 Page |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., 2 states –

“Concededly, the petitioner, 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 not be confused with the manner by which such
right is to be exercised.

“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.”

“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 the respondent water service
connection.” (Emphasis and underscoring 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 –

“A contract of lease is a ‘consensual, bilateral, onerous and

commutative contract by which the owner temporarily grants

2
GR No. 147076, June 17, 2004.
3
Victoria N. Racelis, in her capacity as administrator, versus Spouses Germil Javier and Rebecca Javier, G.R.
No. 189609, January 29, 2018, Third Division, Leonen, J.
 AFFIDAVIT-COMPLAINT OF WEI LIN ONG Page |4

the use of his property to another who undertakes to pay rent

therefor.

“x x x

“The failure to maintain the lessee in the peaceful and adequate

enjoyment of the property leased does not contemplate all acts
of disturbance4.

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.” 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’s Fees in the amount of Php 250,000.00.
d. The cost of suit.

14. Accordingly, Complainant is executing this Complaint-

Affidavit 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 20th day

of July, 2018, in the City of Manila.

4
See Goldstein vs. Roces, 34 Phil. 562, (1916)[Per C.J. Arellano, Second Division].
 AFFIDAVIT-COMPLAINT OF WEI LIN ONG Page |5

WEI LIN ONG, a.k.a. DAVID ONG

Affiant-Complainant

SUBSCRIBED and sworn to before me this 20TH of JULY

2018, in the City of Manila.

I certify that I have personally examined the affiant and am

satisfied that he understood his Affidavit – Complaint and
voluntarily executed the same.

Administering Officer