G.R. No. 182291 - Yu vs. Lim

On 5 February 2004, respondent, representing HGL Development Corporation (HGL), filed a petition before the RTC of Zamboanga City (Cadastral Case No. 04-09) seeking to declare as null and void the new owner’s duplicate copies of titles (TCT Nos. T-107, 353; T-107,354; T-107,355; T-103,790) and to revive the original owner’s duplicate titles.
The background of the dispute involved the sale by petitioner and co-owners of parcels of land to HGL under a Deed of Absolute Sale dated 19 August 2003, wherein HGL later sought the cancellation and reissuance of the titles in its name with the Register of Deeds of Zamboanga City.
The Register of Deeds refused HGL’s request on the grounds that the vendors had already secured new owner’s duplicate copies, which had been cancelled and reissued earlier by an RTC order (dated 7 July 1995) after claiming loss of their copies.

HGL demanded that the vendors surrender the new duplicate copies so that HGL could cancel those and obtain new titles in its name.
Due to the vendors’ refusal, HGL, through respondent, pursued the remedy by filing the petition in the RTC of Zamboanga City.
The trial court dismissed the petition on 20 May 2004 for lack of merit.

On 2 June 2004, HGL filed a civil complaint before the RTC of Caloocan City (Civil Case No. C-20899(04)) against certain vendors, including petitioner Philip S. Yu, seeking specific performance, declaratory relief, cancellation and issuance of new titles, and damages.
Petitioner's criminal complaint for perjury was filed on 18 August 2005 before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Caloocan City, alleging that respondent made untruthful statements in the Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping attached to the civil complaint.
The crux of the criminal complaint was the assertion by respondent that HGL had not commenced any other action involving the same issues, which petitioner contended was false given the prior Cadastral Case filed in Zamboanga City.

The Office of the City Prosecutor of Caloocan City, in its Resolution dated 15 February 2006, dismissed petitioner’s perjury complaint for lack of merit, finding that the two cases (Zamboanga and Caloocan) were based on different parties, rights, and causes of action.
Dissatisfied, petitioner appealed the prosecutor’s resolution to the Department of Justice (DOJ), which on 4 September 2006, granted petition for review and ordered the filing of an Information for Perjury against respondent.
Respondent then filed a Motion for Reconsideration (dated 8 September 2006) which was denied on 29 June 2007.

Respondent elevated the case by filing a Petition for Certiorari with an urgent application for a Temporary Restraining Order and Writ of Preliminary Injunction with the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals, in its Decision on 20 December 2007, nullified the resolutions of the DOJ and prohibited further prosecution of respondent for perjury, holding that the Secretary of Justice acted with grave abuse of discretion due to the absence of probable cause.
Petitioner’s subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied by the Court of Appeals in a Resolution dated 18 March 2008, leading to the present petition for review on certiorari.

Whether the Court of Appeals committed error in modifying and setting aside the resolutions of the Department of Justice directing the filing of an Information for Perjury against respondent.

Specifically, whether respondent’s Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping, by not disclosing the prior filing of the cadastral case, constitutes a willful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood under oath, i.e., perjury.
Whether the elements of perjury must be analyzed independently or vis-à-vis the elements of forum shopping, given the alleged false certification.
The extent to which the discretion of the public prosecutor in determining the presence of probable cause in filing the information is subject to judicial review.