Case Summary (G.R. No. 159550)
Origin of the Case
The initial complaint against FDC and FSCC was brought by Dr. Asturias before the Makati City Regional Trial Court, resulting in a favorable decision for her on April 6, 1992. FDC appealed this decision, but the Court of Appeals modified the ruling, ultimately dismissing claims against FDC due to jurisdictional issues while upholding the ruling against FSCC, which did not appeal and thus allowed the decision to become final.
The Writ of Execution and Garnishment
On August 10, 1999, following Dr. Asturias' motion, the trial court issued a writ of execution to enforce its decision. In March 2003, a sheriff served a Notice of Garnishment to various unit owners in the FSCC, including the respondents.
Filing of the Petition to Annul Judgment
Respondents, as unit owners and members of the FSCC Board, filed a Petition to Annul Judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court in July 2003 asserting that they had not been aware of the RTC decision until March 2003. They claimed this was due to a lack of service and contended that the petition was filed within four years of discovering the decision.
Allegations of Perjury
Dr. Asturias alleged that the representatives of FSCC committed perjury by stating they had only learned of the RTC decision in March 2003, arguing that they had been notified of it by no later than August 11, 1999, as evidenced by a Sheriff’s Report. She filed an administrative complaint with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) alleging that the respondents made false statements under oath.
Respondents' Defense and Evidence
In response, attorneys Serrano and Samson adopted their Counter-Affidavit and maintained that they did not receive the RTC decision until March 2003. The proceedings included discussions regarding the verification of facts presented in the petition for annulment and whether the respondents’ assertions constituted perjury.
IBP Investigation and Findings
During the IBP's investigation, the sole issue was whether the respondents first became aware of the RTC decision in March 2003. The Investigating Commissioner concluded that insufficient evidence existed to establish that the respondents had received the RTC decision earlier or that they made knowingly false statements under oath.
Conclusion of the IBP
The IBP Board of Governors adopted the recommendations of the Investigating Commissioner and dismissed the complaint for lack of merit on June 26, 2004. The complainant's petition for review was subsequently filed on September 16, 2004, challenging th
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 159550)
Case Background
- The case concerns a Petition for Review filed by Dr. Alicia E. Asturias against Attorneys Manuel Serrano and Emiliano Samson, following the dismissal of her complaint by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).
- The complaint alleged conduct unbecoming of a lawyer and professional misconduct on the part of the respondents.
- The IBP Board of Governors dismissed the complaint, which led to Dr. Asturias seeking judicial review.
Procedural History
- Dr. Asturias initiated a civil case (Civil Case No. 16640) against Fedman Development Corporation (FDC) and Fedman Suite Condominium Corporation (FSCC) in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City.
- The RTC ruled in favor of Dr. Asturias on April 6, 1992, against FDC and FSCC, but only FDC appealed the decision.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision on July 31, 1998, with a modification that dismissed the complaint against FDC for lack of jurisdiction.
- The RTC issued a writ of execution on August 10, 1999, upon Dr. Asturias' motion.
Events Leading to the Complaint
- In March 2003, a sheriff served a Notice of Garnishment to unit owners, including the respondents.
- FSCC, represented by the respondents, filed a Petition to Annul the RTC Judgment on July 1, 2003, claiming they discovered the RTC decision only in March 2003. This assertion was included in the verification of the petition signed by the respondents.
- Dr. Asturias alleged that the respondents committed perjury by claiming ignorance of the RTC decision, asserting that