G.R. No. L-25885 - Luzon Brokerage Co., Inc. vs. Maritime Building Co., Inc.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-25885)

Key Dates and Procedural Posture

RTC of Manila granted petition for issuance of new owner’s duplicate TCT on September 17, 1999, later recalled on November 12, 1999 after respondent produced the original owner’s duplicate.
Respondent filed criminal Complaint‑Affidavit for perjury (May 9, 2000) and Supplemental Affidavit (June 7, 2000).
City Prosecutor filed Informations (Crim. Case Nos. 352270–71 CR) for perjury under Article 183, RPC, before the MeTC, Manila, Branch 28.
MeTC denied petitioner’s Omnibus Motion to exclude respondent’s private prosecutor (Order dated August 15, 2003) and denied reconsideration (Order dated November 5, 2003).
Court of Appeals affirmed (Decision dated May 31, 2007; Resolution denying reconsideration dated January 31, 2008).
Supreme Court petition under Rule 45 sought review of CA decisions and MeTC orders; decision of the Supreme Court affirmed CA and MeTC (G.R. No. 181658).

Applicable Law and Rules (1987 Constitution applicable)

1987 Philippine Constitution (as the governing charter for cases decided post‑1990).
Revised Penal Code (Articles cited in decision: Art. 100, 183, 105–107 referenced concerning civil liability and indemnity).
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure: Rule 110 (Sections 12, 16) and Rule 111 (Section 1) on intervention of the offended party and the institution of civil action concomitant with criminal action.
Jurisprudence cited in the decision: Lim Tek Goan v. Yatco; Garcia v. Court of Appeals; Ramiscal, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan; Chua v. Court of Appeals; and other authorities referenced in the Court’s reasoning.

Factual Summary: Title Petition and Affidavit of Loss

Petitioner (as CHI president per Secretary’s Certificate) filed a verified petition (LRC Record No. 4004, RTC Manila Branch 4) and an affidavit of loss asserting that he, in his capacity as CHI president, had custody of the owner’s duplicate of TCT No. 232238 and that it was inadvertently lost in May 1999; RTC initially ordered issuance of a duplicate title but later recalled and set aside that order after respondent (treasurer of CHI) and her brother produced the owner’s duplicate in court.

Factual Summary: Criminal Complaint for Perjury

Respondent filed a Complaint‑Affidavit alleging petitioner committed perjury by falsely claiming under oath (in his verification, affidavit of loss, and oral testimony) that the TCT duplicate was in his custody and lost, when respondent (as CHI treasurer) actually possessed it. Respondent alleged the misrepresentation was deliberate and motivated by petitioner’s intent to mortgage the property. The investigating prosecutor recommended dismissal but the review resolution set aside that recommendation and the City Prosecutor filed Informations for perjury.

Trial Events and Motion to Exclude Private Prosecutor

At trial before the MeTC, Atty. Augusto M. Macam appeared as respondent’s counsel and private prosecutor (acting with consent and under the control and supervision of the public prosecutor). Following the prosecution’s first witness, petitioner moved to exclude respondent and her counsel from participating as private prosecutor on the ground that perjury is a public crime and there is no private offended party; MeTC directed memoranda, then denied the Omnibus Motion and reargument, permitting the private prosecutor to participate subject to public prosecutor control.

Court of Appeals Decision and Rationale

The Court of Appeals affirmed MeTC, holding that respondent, as the private complainant and corporate treasurer/stockholder, was an aggrieved party whose property rights and interests were threatened by petitioner’s alleged perjury. CA applied Lim Tek Goan’s principle that the offended party may intervene even when no civil liability is immediately asserted and that such intervention is subject to the public prosecutor’s direction and control. CA found petitioner’s right to fair trial not violated because the public prosecutor retained prosecutorial authority.

Issues Raised to the Supreme Court

Whether CA gravely erred by upholding MeTC’s finding that there is a private offended party in the crime of perjury (a crime against public interest).
Whether CA erred by upholding respondent’s right to intervene as private complainant and to be represented by a private prosecutor on behalf of the corporation without corporate authorization.

Petitioner’s Contentions

Petitioner argued that perjury is a public offense that offends the public interest in the administration of justice and does not create a private offended party entitled to intervene through a private prosecutor; he contended that intervention requires an allegation or proof of civil liability or private damage. Petitioner also argued respondent lacked authority to act on CHI’s behalf and thus could not properly intervene for the corporation.

Respondent’s Contentions

Respondent maintained her right to intervene under the rules as the private complainant, a stockholder and treasurer of CHI. She relied on Lim Tek Goan and related jurisprudence to assert that intervention is permissible even where no express civil liability is pleaded, because her personal and corporate interests were threatened.

Governing Legal Principles Applied by the Court

Rule 111, Sec. 1: civil action for recovery of civil liability arising from the offense is deemed instituted with the criminal action unless waived, reserved, or instituted separately.
Rule 110, Sec. 16: where civil action is instituted with the criminal action, the offended party may intervene by counsel in prosecution.
Rule 110, Sec. 12: offended party defined as the person against whom or against whose property the offense was committed.
Article 100 and related provisions: general principle that criminal liability ordinarily gives rise to civil liability (basis for private intervention to seek restitution, reparation, indemnity).
Jurisprudence: the offended party need not be precluded from intervening in public crimes; intervention aims to enforce civil liability arising from the offense and is subject to public prosecutor control (Lim Tek Goan; Chua; Garcia; Ramiscal).

Supreme Court’s Analysis and Application to Facts

The Court emphasized the legal premise that criminal liability commonly entails civil liability and that an “offended party” is the person against whom or whose property the offense was committed. The Court found that petitioner’s sworn statements concerning custody and loss of TCT No. 232238, if proven perjurious, would injure respondent’s personal credibility and reputation as CHI treasurer and would thr

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-25885)

Title, Citation, and Panel

Supreme Court of the Philippines, First Division decision reported at 716 Phil. 89.
G.R. No. 181658; Decision promulgated August 7, 2013.
Decision authored by Justice Villarama, Jr.
Concurrence: Chief Justice Sereno (Chairperson), Justices Brion, Bersamin, and Reyes.
Designation note: Justice Bersamin was an additional member designated per Special Order No. 1497 dated July 31, 2013.

Parties and Roles

Petitioner: Lee Pue Liong a.k.a. Paul Lee; President of Centillion Holdings, Inc. (CHI); petitioner in the Supreme Court matter.
Respondent: Chua Pue Chin Lee; majority stockholder and Treasurer of CHI; private complainant and private prosecutor in the underlying criminal cases.
Private prosecutor counsel: Atty. Augusto M. Macam.
Prosecution witness named: Atty. Ronaldo Viesca, Jr. (Land Registration Authority lawyer).
MeTC judge who penned the orders: Judge Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas.
Court of Appeals decision penned by Associate Justice Regalado E. Maambong with Associate Justices Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. and Celia C. Librea-Leagogo concurring.

Procedural Posture and Relief Sought

This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.
Petitioner sought reversal of: (a) the May 31, 2007 Decision and (b) the January 31, 2008 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 81510.
Petitioner challenged MeTC Orders dated August 15, 2003 and November 5, 2003 denying: (1) an Omnibus Motion to exclude a private prosecutor from two perjury cases; and (2) a Motion for Reconsideration of that denial.
Petitioner also petitioned the CA for certiorari with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order to enjoin enforcement of MeTC Orders and to prevent the private prosecutor from participating while the petition was pending.

Chronology of Key Factual Events

June 14, 1999: Petitioner, on behalf of CHI (per Secretary’s Certificate issued by Virginia Lee), filed a verified Petition for issuance of an Owner’s Duplicate Copy of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 232238 in the RTC of Manila (LRC Record No. 4004, Branch 4).
Petitioner filed an Affidavit of Loss asserting custody of the owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. 232238, its inadvertent loss discovered in May 1999, diligent efforts to locate it, and that it had not been mortgaged or used as collateral.
Petitioner testified in an ex-parte proceeding supporting these averments.
RTC Order dated September 17, 1999: RTC granted the petition and directed the Register of Deeds of Manila to issue a new owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. 232238.
Respondent and brother Nixon Lee opposed the petition, produced the Owner’s Duplicate Copy in open court, and on November 12, 1999 the RTC recalled and set aside its September 17, 1999 Order.
May 9, 2000: Respondent filed a Complaint-Affidavit with the City Prosecutor of Manila accusing petitioner of willful and deliberate falsehood in his verified petition, affidavit of loss, and testimony—i.e., perjury—alleging petitioner knew respondent possessed the owner’s duplicate copy and intended to mortgage a new owner’s copy.
June 7, 2000: Respondent executed a Supplemental Affidavit specifying alleged perjurious occasions (verification, affidavit of loss, and sworn testimony).
Investigating Prosecutor recommended dismissal; First Assistant City Prosecutor Eufrosino A. Sulla issued a Review Resolution dated December 1, 2000 setting aside the recommendation and the City Prosecutor filed Informations.
Informations docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 352270-71 CR for perjury (Article 183, RPC) were filed before the MeTC of Manila, Branch 28.
MeTC: Atty. Augusto M. Macam appeared as counsel for respondent and as private prosecutor under the control and supervision of the public prosecutor.
After the prosecution’s first witness (Atty. Ronaldo Viesca, Jr.), petitioner’s counsel moved to exclude respondent and her lawyer from participating, arguing perjury is a public offense and private prosecution is improper; MeTC gave parties opportunity to file motions/comments and set the matter for resolution.

Underlying Criminal and Related Civil Context

The CKC Group (including Clothman Knitting Corporation) was the subject of intra-corporate disputes among petitioner and his siblings, including respondent.
On July 19, 1999, petitioner’s siblings allegedly took over and barricaded themselves inside a CKC-owned factory; related criminal cases (numerous, including cases in Valenzuela City) were noted in the record (Criminal Case Nos. 971-V-99, 55503–55505, 972-V-99, etc.).
The alleged issuance of a new owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. 232238, if successful, could have allowed petitioner to mortgage the property to Planters Development Bank, according to respondent’s affidavit.

Motions, Orders, and Lower Court Rulings

Petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion in MeTC (seeking exclusion of private prosecutor), and later a Motion for Reconsideration upon denial.
MeTC Order dated August 15, 2003 denied the Omnibus Motion, reasoning:
- While criminal actions are prosecuted under the public prosecutor, the offended party may intervene personally or by attorney, even where the offense is public in nature, unless the offended party waives or reserves the civil action.
- Intervention is subject to the direction and control of the public prosecutor (citing Lim Tek Goan v. Yatco).
- The MeTC found the case involved a public crime but the private prosecutor had asserted its right to intervene; hence intervention was not proscribed.
MeTC denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration via Order dated November 5, 2003.
Petitioner sought CA relief by certiorari; CA Decision dated May 31, 2007 affirmed MeTC:
- CA held that presence of private prosecutor under control/supervision of public prosecutor is not proscribed by rules.
- CA found respondent to be an aggrieved party as private complainant; invoked Lim Tek Goan and cited Justice Regalado’s Remedial Law Compendium.
- CA reasoned respondent’s property rights and interests as treasurer and stockholder of CHI were disturbed/threatened by petitioner’s alleged acts.
- CA held petitioner’s right to fair trial was not violated because the public prosecutor retained prosecutorial authority.
CA denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration via Resolution dated January 31, 2008.

Issues Raised in the Supreme Court Petition

Issue I: Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave error by upholding MeTC’s resolution that there is a private offended party in the crime of perjury, a crime against public interest.
Issue II: Whether the CA erred in upholding lower court resolutions that allowed respondent, an alleged stockholder of CHI, to intervene in the perjury criminal case as private complainant on behalf of the corporation without