Title
Saavedra, Jr. vs. Department of Justice
Case
G.R. No. 93173
Decision Date
Sep 15, 1993
A dispute over share sale rescission led to a perjury charge; SC ruled DOJ overstepped by addressing rescission, an SEC-exclusive matter, and dismissed the case due to insufficient evidence of willful falsehood.
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 93173)

Factual Background

On 2 July 1987, petitioner acquired the shares of Pine Philippines, Inc. from the company’s owners, including private respondent Gregorio M. Ramos, for P1.2 million payable in installments, evidenced by a Memorandum of Agreement and a Deed of Assignment which contained an automatic rescission clause for missed installments. Petitioner paid P936,380.00 and thus owed P263,620.00 due 15 September 1987; he withheld payment alleging breach of warranties and deposited the balance in escrow pending compliance. On 5 November 1987 petitioner filed a verified civil complaint for damages in behalf of PPI, averring that he was President and principal stockholder of the corporation. Ramos answered that the sale had been automatically rescinded on 15 September 1987 and that petitioner no longer had authority to sue for PPI.

Proceedings in the SEC and Civil Court

Following an executed document titled "Rescission of Memorandum of Agreement," Ramos and his associates filed SEC Case No. 3257 on 20 November 1987 seeking declaration of the rescission. Petitioner moved to dismiss 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, ruled that under Section 5(b) of P.D. No. 902-A the SEC had primary and exclusive jurisdiction over the intracorporate disputes regarding ownership and automatic rescission, and proceedings in Civil Case No. 55247 in the trial court were suspended.

Criminal Charge and Preliminary Investigation

On 7 December 1987 Ramos filed a perjury charge (I.S. No. 87-10773) with the Provincial Prosecutor in Pasig, alleging that petitioner perjured himself by declaring under verification in the complaint of 5 November 1987 that he was President of PPI. Petitioner answered that the ownership and rescission issues were then pending before the SEC and that he continued to be President according to SEC records; he also asserted deposit of the balance in escrow. The Provincial Prosecutor, relying chiefly on a Secretary’s Certificate dated 5 December 1987 reflecting Ramos’s election as President after reconvening the original board, found prima facie probable cause on 25 July 1988 and filed an Information on 26 October 1988 in Crim. Case No. 74919 before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Branch 67.

DOJ Resolution and Reconsideration

Petitioner sought review with the Department of Justice, which on 6 November 1989 affirmed the Provincial Prosecutor’s finding of probable cause. The DOJ stated that the Secretary’s Certificate “is a mute but eloquent witness” affirming Ramos’s claim to the presidency and concluded that by virtue of the rescission petitioner “lost your rights and interest over the shares of stock” and therefore his statement that he was President “constituted a lawful (sic) and deliberate assertion of falsehood.” A motion for reconsideration was denied by DOJ on 7 March 1990, prompting the present petition for certiorari and prohibition.

Petitioner’s Contentions

Petitioner argued that DOJ and the Provincial Prosecutor gravely abused their discretion by determining probable cause for perjury on the premise that automatic rescission had occurred, because the authority to decide automatic rescission and intracorporate ownership rested exclusively with the Securities and Exchange Commission under P.D. No. 902-A. Petitioner maintained that, with the SEC case pending and unresolved, the DOJ should have deferred and that the prosecutor’s action amounted to a preemption of SEC jurisdiction.

The Court’s Analysis on Primary Jurisdiction

The Court held that the petition had merit and that the doctrine of primary jurisdiction and the mandate of P.D. No. 902-A required that contestable intracorporate issues be left to the SEC. The Court emphasized prior rulings, including Saavedra, Jr. v. SEC, that the ownership and automatic rescission dispute was intracorporate and within the SEC’s primary and exclusive competence pursuant to Section 5(b) of P.D. No. 902-A. The Court explained that when an administrative tribunal is vested with special competence by statute, the judicial process must suspend or defer to that tribunal’s resolution; consequently the Provincial Prosecutor had no authority to decide the rescission issue while SEC proceedings were pending and should have withheld filing an Information until the SEC determined ownership and rescission.

The Court’s Analysis on Elements of Perjury

The Court further examined the sufficiency of evidence to establish probable cause for perjury, identifying the four elements required: (a) a statement under oath on a material matter; (b) before a competent officer; (c) a willful and deliberate assertion of falsehood; and (d) that the sworn statement is required by law or made for a legal purpose. Citing Diaz v. People and

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.