Case Digest (G.R. No. 93173)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 93173)
Facts:
Honorio Saavedra, Jr. v. Department of Justice, G.R. No. 93173, September 15, 1993, First Division, Bellosillo, J., writing for the Court. This petition for certiorari and prohibition sought annulment of the Department of Justice Resolutions of 6 November 1989 and 7 March 1990 which sustained a Provincial Prosecutor's finding of probable cause for perjury against petitioner Honorio Saavedra, Jr. and denied reconsideration.
On 2 July 1987 petitioner purchased shares of Pine Philippines, Inc. (PPI) from several owners including private respondent Gregorio M. Ramos for P1.2 million, evidenced by a Memorandum of Agreement and a Deed of Assignment which contained an automatic rescission clause for missed installment payments. Petitioner paid P936,380.00, leaving P263,620.00 due 15 September 1987; he withheld the last payment alleging the sellers breached warranties, and the balance was deposited in escrow pending compliance with those warranties.
On 5 November 1987 petitioner filed, purportedly on behalf of PPI, a verified civil complaint for damages alleging he was PPI's President and principal stockholder. Ramos answered, challenging Saavedra's capacity to sue and asserting that the sale had been automatically rescinded on 15 September 1987, thereby terminating petitioner’s presidency. Ramos and his group executed a document titled "Rescission of Memorandum of Agreement" and on 20 November 1987 filed SEC Case No. 3257 seeking validation of the rescission as an intracorporate dispute.
Petitioner moved to dismiss the SEC action for lack of jurisdiction; the SEC denied the motion on 11 December 1987. The Supreme Court, in Saavedra, Jr. v. SEC, G.R. No. 80879 (21 March 1988), held the SEC had primary and exclusive jurisdiction over intracorporate disputes under P.D. No. 902‑A, Sec. 5(b); accordingly, proceedings in Civil Case No. 55247 were suspended. Meanwhile, on 7 December 1987 Ramos filed a criminal complaint for perjury with the Provincial Prosecutor in Pasig, alleging petitioner perjured himself by averring in the verified complaint that he was PPI President.
After petitioner defended that the SEC proceedings made the ownership/rescission issue unresolved, the Provincial Prosecutor, by Resolution dated 25 July 1988, found probable cause for perjury (I.S. No. 87‑10773) and on 26 October 1988 filed the Information in RTC Pasig as Crim. Case No. 74919. The Prosecutor relied principally on a Secretary's Certificate dated 5 December 1987 showing Ramos’ election as PPI President. Petitioner sought review with the DOJ, which issued the 6 November 1989 Resolution affirming probable cause and on 7 March 1990 denied reconsideration, prompting this petition for certiorari and prohibition (Rule 65 relief) to the Supreme Court.
Issues:
- Did the Department of Justice gravely abuse its discretion by affirming the Provincial Prosecutor's finding of probable cause for perjury when the question of automatic rescission and corporate presidency fell within the SEC's primary and exclusive jurisdiction under P.D. No. 902‑A?
- Was there probable cause to prosecute petitioner for perjury based on his sworn statement in the verified complaint given the statutory elements of perjury and the rules on verification of pleadings?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)