G.R. No. 194139 - Cagas vs. Commission on Elections

Complainant Dr. Alicia E. Asturias filed a complaint for specific performance and damages against Fedman Development Corporation (FDC) and Fedman Suite Condominium Corporation (FSCC) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City (Civil Case No. 16640).
The RTC rendered a decision on April 6, 1992, in favor of Dr. Asturias.
On appeal, only FDC contested the decision; the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision on July 31, 1998, with modifications wherein the complaint against FDC was dismissed and jurisdiction for that aspect was transferred to the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board.
The decision became final and executory for FSCC, which did not appeal, leading to the issuance of a writ of execution on August 10, 1999.

In February 2003, following the execution of the RTC decision, the sheriff issued and served a Notice of Garnishment to unit owners, tenants, and occupants of the FSCC building.
FSCC, represented by counsel Lagera and Avelino, filed a Petition to Annul the RTC judgment before the Court of Appeals on July 1, 2003, under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court.
Central to FSCC’s petition was the allegation that no motion for new trial, appeal, or petition for relief could have been availed by petitioners due to the discovery of the RTC decision only in March 2003, despite evidence that FSCC had earlier received the decision on July 20, 1992, via its counsel.

Based on the verification contained in the FSCC petition—specifically, the assertion (paragraph 1.1) that FSCC and its representatives only became aware of the RTC decision in March 2003—Dr. Asturias filed an administrative complaint against attorneys Manuel Serrano and Emiliano Samson.
Complainant alleged that such statements, made under oath, were false because evidences (including the Sheriff’s report and a separate Motion to Archive/Suspend Proceedings filed by FSCC) demonstrated that FSCC was notified of the RTC decision as early as August 11, 1999.
Dr. Asturias supplemented her administrative complaint with her criminal Complaint-Affidavit for perjury, instituted before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila.

The case was brought before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD), where a Mandatory Preliminary Conference was held on January 8, 2004, with the sole issue defined as whether the respondents had knowledge of the RTC decision only in March 2003 or earlier.
During the proceedings, both complainant (with counsel) and respondent Atty. Emiliano Samson (representing himself and co-respondent Atty. Serrano) presented their positions regarding the timing and receipt of the RTC decision.
In its Investigation Report dated May 24, 2004, CBD Investigating Commissioner Demaree J. B. Raval recommended dismissing the complaint for lack of merit based on:

The absence of evidence showing that respondents had received the RTC decision on the alleged date.
The fact that mere inclusion of an assertion in a court pleading—especially one relevant to the issues of the case—is privileged and not sufficient to establish perjury.
A lack of proof that any false statement was made deliberately and willfully.

By Resolution on June 26, 2004, the IBP Board of Governors approved the Investigating Commissioner’s Report, effectively dismissing the administrative complaint against the respondents.
Dr. Asturias filed a Petition for Review on September 16, 2004, challenging the dismissal on grounds of alleged grave error and violation of due process, particularly for not considering FSCC’s Motion to Suspend Proceedings/Archive Case.
However, on October 24, 2004, the Supreme Court noted the IBP’s dismissal, considering the case closed and terminated.
On November 24, 2004, the Court directed the respondents to file a comment, during which the respondents referenced the dismissal of a related criminal case for perjury by the Office of the City Prosecutor.

Whether the allegations contained in paragraph 1.1 of the FSCC Petition to Annul the RTC judgment—asserting that the respondents discovered the RTC decision only in March 2003—constituted a deliberate and willful misrepresentation constituting perjury.

Whether the evidence presented by Dr. Asturias was sufficient to establish that respondents knowingly made a false statement under oath, thereby justifying administrative disciplinary action.

Whether statements made in a court pleading, even if erroneous, are subject to criminal or administrative sanction given their privileged character under Philippine jurisprudence.

Whether the IBP, through its Investigating Commissioner and subsequent Board resolution, properly dismissed the administrative complaint based on the merits of the evidence and established legal principles.