Title
Yu vs. Lim
Case
G.R. No. 182291
Decision Date
Sep 22, 2010
Petitioner accused respondent of perjury for omitting a prior cadastral case in a civil suit's forum shopping certification. Courts ruled no forum shopping or perjury, as cases involved distinct parties, rights, and reliefs.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 182291)

Procedural History

The case originates from a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by Philip S. Yu, challenging the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated December 20, 2007, and March 18, 2008, respectively, which granted Hernan G. Lim's petition for certiorari. This petition sought to nullify a prior resolution by the Secretary of Justice that directed the filing of an Information for Perjury against Lim.

Antecedent Events

On February 5, 2004, Lim, acting for HGL Development Corporation, filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Zamboanga City to declare multiple Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs) as null and void and revive the original TCTs held by the vendors (including Yu). Lim’s company sought to transfer title ownership, but the Register of Deeds refused due to prior cancellations of the titles based on loss claims by the vendors. Following this refusal, Lim filed a Cadastral Case (No. 04-09) which was dismissed for lack of merit in May 2004.

Subsequent Legal Actions

On June 2, 2004, HGL filed a separate complaint for specific performance against several vendors, including Yu. Subsequently, Yu accused Lim of perjury, asserting that Lim made false statements regarding other pending cases in a Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping attached to the complaint. Yu claimed Lim's assertion of not having initiated any other action regarding the same issues was deliberately false.

Rulings of the Office of the City Prosecutor

On February 15, 2006, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Caloocan City dismissed Yu's perjury complaint, concluding that the two cases involved different parties and rights, and thus lacked the requisite elements of forum shopping.

Department of Justice's Resolution

Yu appealed to the Department of Justice, which on September 4, 2006, reversed the prosecutor's decision, directing that charges for perjury be filed against Lim. The Department concluded that Lim's statements in the certification were misleading, as the two cases were, in essence, identical concerning parties, issues, and relief sought.

Court of Appeals' Verdict

Lim sought relief from the Court of Appeals, arguing that there was no probable cause for the perjury charge. The appellate court, in its December 20, 2007 decision, sided with Lim, stating the Secretary of Justice acted beyond his jurisdiction by allowing the perjury complaint to proceed despite the evident lack of probable cause.

Evaluation of Perjury Allegations

The primary issue under review is whether the Court of Appeals committed an error in setting aside the Department of Justice's resolutions. Petitioner Yu argued that all elements for perjury were met, including making a false statement under oath. The court reaffirmed that perjury requires a willful and deliberate act of falsehood, specifically evaluating the Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping's relationship to the elements of forum shopping.

Legal Reasoning by the Court

The court emphasiz

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.