G.R. No. 182291 ; September 22, 2010
PHILIP S. YU, Petitioner, vs. HERNAN G. LIM, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Hernan G. Lim, as representative of HGL Development Corporation, filed a civil complaint for specific performance and other reliefs against petitioner Philip S. Yu and others in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City (Civil Case No. C-20899(04)). The complaint sought to compel the defendants to surrender new owner’s duplicate certificates of title to certain parcels of land that HGL had purchased. Attached to this complaint was a Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping signed by Lim, which stated that HGL had not commenced any other action involving the same issues. Petitioner Yu subsequently filed a criminal complaint for Perjury against Lim before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Caloocan City. Yu alleged that Lim’s certification was false because HGL had previously filed a related “Petition to Declare New Owner’s Duplicate of Transfer Certificate of Title… as Null and Void” in the RTC of Zamboanga City (Cadastral Case No. 04-09), which was dismissed for lack of merit. The City Prosecutor dismissed the perjury complaint, finding no forum shopping. The Secretary of Justice, on appeal, reversed and ordered the filing of an Information for Perjury. The Court of Appeals, via certiorari, nullified the Secretary’s resolution, reinstating the prosecutor’s dismissal.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that no probable cause for Perjury exists against respondent Hernan G. Lim.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The crime of Perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code requires that a false statement be made willfully and deliberately, under oath, on a material matter. The Court found that even assuming Lim was required to disclose the prior Zamboanga case in his forum shopping certification, the petitioner failed to establish that the omission was willful and deliberate. The element of malicious intent or conscious disregard for the truth was absent. The Court noted the two cases, while involving the same properties, had different causes of action and prayers: the Zamboanga case was a petition in a cadastral proceeding to declare titles null and void, whereas the Caloocan case was a civil action for specific performance to compel the surrender of titles. Therefore, the respondent could have genuinely believed in good faith that he was not engaging in forum shopping, negating the requisite criminal intent for perjury. Consequently, the finding of a lack of probable cause by the Court of Appeals was correct.