G.R. No. 93173 - Saavedra, Jr. vs. Department of Justice

On 2 July 1987, the owners of Pine Philippines, Inc. (PPI), including private respondent Gregorio M. Ramos, sold their shares to petitioner Honorio Saavedra, Jr. for P1.2 million payable in installments.
A "Memorandum of Agreement" and a "Deed of Assignment" were executed to evidence the transaction, with the Memorandum containing an automatic rescission clause in the event an installment was not paid on due date.
Although payments totaling P936,380.00 were made, a balance of P263,620.00 remained payable on 15 September 1987. On that date, the petitioner withheld payment on the grounds that the sellers had failed to comply with their warranties, and the balance was subsequently deposited in escrow pending compliance with such warranties.

On 5 November 1987, petitioner filed a verified civil complaint for damages on behalf of PPI against Romero, asserting that he was the President and principal stockholder of the company.
Respondent Ramos questioned petitioner’s capacity to sue on behalf of PPI, arguing that petitioner ceased to be its President due to the automatic rescission of the stock sale agreement on 15 September 1987.
Following the execution of a "Rescission of Memorandum of Agreement" document by Ramos and his group, a case was filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on 20 November 1987 seeking declaration of the rescission’s validity and legality.
The petitioner’s motion to dismiss the SEC’s jurisdiction was denied on 11 December 1987, and the Supreme Court, on 21 March 1988, upheld the SEC’s "primary and exclusive" jurisdiction over the issues of ownership and automatic rescission under Section 5(b) of P.D. No. 902-A, thereby suspending proceedings in the pending civil case.

On 7 December 1987, during the pendency of SEC Case No. 3257, respondent Ramos filed a criminal case for perjury against petitioner with the Provincial Prosecutor’s Office in Pasig, alleging that petitioner perjured himself when he verified his complaint by stating he was President of PPI.
In his answer-affidavit, petitioner contended that, since the issues of ownership and automatic rescission were still unresolved before the SEC, his assertion of being President was based on the records extant with the SEC.
By Resolution dated 25 July 1988, the Provincial Prosecutor found a prima facie case for perjury and, on 26 October 1988, filed the corresponding Information with the Regional Trial Court of Pasig, docketed as Crim. Case No. 74919.
The evidence relied upon was the Secretary’s Certificate dated 5 December 1987, which reflected the election of respondent Ramos as President of PPI by the former owners following the automatic rescission of the agreement.

Subsequently, the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a Resolution on 6 November 1989 upholding the finding of probable cause for perjury against petitioner.
The Resolution emphasized the Secretary’s Certificate as mute yet eloquent evidence that petitioner had made a "lawful and deliberate assertion of falsehood" by claiming the presidency of PPI.
A Motion for Reconsideration was filed by the petitioner but was unsuccessful, prompting the petitioner to seek certiorari and prohibition to nullify the DOJ Resolutions dated 6 November 1989 and 7 March 1990.
Petitioner argued that the prosecutor had overstepped by ruling on the matter of automatic rescission—a dispute that properly falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the SEC under PD No. 902-A.

The petitioner asserted that any decision regarding the automatic rescission of the stock sale should be left to the SEC, whose exclusive and primary jurisdiction had been repeatedly reaffirmed by the Supreme Court.
The petitioner maintained that his statement in the verified complaint was made in good faith based on pending administrative proceedings and was not intended to be a willful assertion of falsehood.
The controversy raised issues regarding whether a duly filed verified complaint, not mandated by law to be verified, could serve as a basis for a perjury charge given the unsettled status of the corporate dispute.

Whether the Provincial Prosecutor’s findings of probable cause for perjury against the petitioner were valid, considering that the issues of automatic rescission and corporate control fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the SEC.

Does the unresolved matter of automatic rescission preclude the criminal proceeding for perjury?
Is it proper for the prosecutor to rule on issues that are inherently intracorporate and subject to administrative resolution?

Whether the use of the Secretary’s Certificate, which postdates the alleged false statement and reflects the disputed election of company leadership, constitutes a deliberate and willful assertion of falsehood necessary to establish perjury.

Can a statement made in a verified complaint that is not legally required to be under oath satisfy the elements of perjury?
Was the petitioner’s reliance on pending SEC proceedings sufficient to negate the element of willfulness in the alleged false assertion?

Whether the DOJ’s issuance of resolutions upholding the probable cause for perjury constitutes a grave abuse of discretion by intruding on the SEC’s exclusive jurisdiction over intracorporate matters.