Asturias v. Serrano
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Dr. Alicia E. Asturias filed a complaint for specific performance and damages against Fedman Development Corporation (FDC) and Fedman Suites Condominium Corporation (FSCC) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City. The RTC ruled in favor of Dr. Asturias against FDC and FSCC. FDC appealed to the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the complaint against FDC, finding that jurisdiction was exclusively with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board. FSCC did not appeal the RTC decision against it, which became final and executory. Subsequently, a writ of execution was issued, and the sheriff served a Notice of Garnishment upon unit owners, including respondents. Procedural History: FSCC, through its counsel, filed a Petition to Annul the RTC Judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court before the Court of Appeals, alleging that the judgment was discovered only in March 2003. Dr. Asturias filed an administrative complaint with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) against respondents Attys. Manuel Serrano and Emiliano Samson, alleging perjury in their verification of the petition to annul the judgment. The IBP's Investigating Commissioner recommended dismissal for lack of merit, finding no proof of willful and deliberate falsehood and noting the privileged nature of statements in pleadings. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this recommendation and dismissed the complaint. This Court noted the IBP's resolution, considering the case closed and terminated, but later required respondents to comment on Dr. Asturias' Petition for Review. The Petition: Dr. Asturias filed a Petition for Review before the Office of the Bar Confidant, seeking to reverse the IBP's dismissal of her administrative complaint. She argued that the IBP gravely erred by failing to consider the Motion to Suspend Proceedings/Archive Case filed by respondents, thereby violating her right to due process, and by not finding respondents administratively liable for misleading, false, and contradictory allegations in their Petition for Annulment and Motion to Suspend Proceedings. The petition faults the respondents for allegedly committing perjury by stating in their petition to annul the judgment that they only discovered the RTC decision in March 2003, when evidence suggested prior knowledge. This Court, however, found that the complainant failed to prove that respondents deliberately and willfully made the questioned assertion, as records did not show that respondents themselves received a copy of the decision or knew about it prior to March 2003.
Issue(s)
Whether respondents Attys. Manuel Serrano and Emiliano Samson committed perjury by making an allegedly false statement under oath in a Petition for Annulment of Judgment filed before the Court of Appeals. Whether the statements made in the Petition for Annulment of Judgment are covered by absolute privilege.
Ruling
The petition for review is DENIED. The Resolution of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines dismissing the administrative complaint is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Issue of Perjury: The Court held that the complainant failed to prove that respondents deliberately and willfully made the questioned assertion in the verification of the Petition for Annulment of Judgment. The Sheriff's Report only showed that a copy of the appellate court's decision was received by an administrative secretary, not by the respondents themselves. Similarly, the Motion to Archive/Suspend Proceedings indicated receipt of the trial court's decision by a different counsel, Atty. Quintin Bautista, on July 20, 1992, and not by the respondents. Crucially, the records did not show that respondents, who were not parties to the original specific performance case, themselves received a copy of the RTC decision or knew about it prior to March 2003. The Court reiterated that for perjury, the assertion must be willful and deliberate, and good faith or lack of malice serves as a defense. Since the complainant failed to establish that respondents had actual knowledge of the RTC Decision's dates or their date of discovery by respondents, the charge of perjury could not prosper. The burden of proof rests on the complainant to establish the charge by clear, convincing, and satisfactory proof, which was not met in this instance. On the Issue of Privileged Communication: Although not the primary basis for dismissal, the Court noted the principle that statements made in an appropriate pleading filed in court, which are relevant to the issues therein, are absolutely privileged and may not be the subject of a criminal prosecution. This principle, as established in cases like Flordelis v. Himalaloan, underscores the protection afforded to statements made in judicial pleadings, provided they are relevant and made in good faith within the context of the legal proceedings. While the administrative complaint was for disbarment, the underlying act alleged was perjury, and the concept of privileged communication is relevant in assessing the actionable nature of such statements made in pleadings.
Main Doctrine
Complainant failed to prove that respondents deliberately and willfully made the questioned assertion in the verification of the Petition for Annulment of Judgment, as the records do not show that respondents themselves received a copy of the RTC decision or knew about it prior to March 2003. Absent clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence of respondents' deliberate and willful falsehood, the administrative complaint for perjury must fail.