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.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 93173)

Transaction Background

On July 2, 1987, the owners of PPI, including Ramos, sold their shares to Saavedra for P1.2 million in installments, documented through a Memorandum of Agreement and a Deed of Assignment. These agreements included an automatic rescission clause if any payment was missed. Saavedra paid a total of P936,380.00, with a remaining balance of P263,620.00 due on September 15, 1987. Saavedra withheld this payment due to the sellers' alleged failure to honor warranties, but he deposited the amount in escrow contingent upon warranty compliance.

Legal Proceedings Initiated

On November 5, 1987, while a civil complaint for damages was pending against Ramos in the SEC, Ramos filed a criminal case for perjury against Saavedra, claiming he falsely stated he was President of PPI in the complaint he filed. The Provincial Prosecutor later determined that a prima facie case for perjury existed based on a Secretary's Certificate showing Ramos had been elected President after the alleged automatic rescission of the agreement.

Department of Justice Review

Saavedra sought a review from the DOJ regarding the Provincial Prosecutor’s Resolution, which found probable cause for perjury. The DOJ upheld this finding, stating that Saavedra's assertion of being PPI's President was legally and intentionally false due to the rescission of the agreements.

Petitioner's Argument

In his petition to the Supreme Court, Saavedra contested the DOJ's findings, asserting that the questions of ownership and rescission were within the jurisdiction of the SEC, and that the DOJ had overstepped its authority by making determinations on those matters. He highlighted that the jurisdiction of these issues rested with the SEC, which had already been established in earlier relevant jurisprudence.

Legal Principles Applied

The Supreme Court reiterated the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, which requires courts to defer to the specialized knowledge and competence of administrative bodies for matters within their purview. The SEC, as the regulatory body, holds exclusive authority over intracorporate disputes, including issues of ownership and automatic rescission.

Decision on the Perjury Charge

The Court found that the Provincial Prosecutor acted beyond its jurisdiction by proceeding with the perjury case when the fundamental questions surrounding the automatic rescission and the legitimacy of Saavedra’s claims were unresolved a

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.