GR 150869; (June, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 150869 ; June 9, 2005
LEONARDO M. ANDRES, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. JUSTICE SECRETARY SERAFIN R. CUEVAS, ET AL., Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners, majority stockholders of the Rural Bank of Pandi, filed a petition before the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) against private respondents, minority stockholders, for injunction, accounting, and damages. The petition alleged acts of mismanagement, fraud, and conflict of interest. Specifically, it stated that since respondent Mercedes Coloma assumed her position, there had been no declaration of cash dividends to stockholders, unlawfully depriving them of income, and that respondents were disposing of properties with intent to defraud petitioners and the bank.
Based on these allegations in the SEC petition, private respondents filed a complaint for perjury against petitioners before the City Prosecutor of Mandaluyong. They contended the statements were willful falsehoods, attaching corporate minutes and dividend schedules proving declarations and payments of stock and cash dividends from 1981 to 1990. An information for perjury was subsequently filed in the Metropolitan Trial Court. Petitioners argued their allegations were made in good faith in the course of an intracorporate dispute and that the petition was prepared by their counsel.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioners may be held liable for perjury based on allegations made in a petition filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in an intracorporate dispute.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioners cannot be held liable for perjury. The Court emphasized that for perjury to prosper, the false statement must be deliberate and willful. In this case, the allegations were made in the context of an intracorporate controversy filed with the SEC, a quasi-judicial body. Statements made in pleadings filed in judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings are generally privileged as long as they are relevant and pertinent to the case.
The Court found that the petitioners’ statements regarding the non-declaration of cash dividends and the alleged intent to defraud were material allegations relevant to their claims of mismanagement and fraud in the SEC case. The existence of corporate records showing dividend declarations presented a factual dispute on the merits of the SEC petition, not a conclusive proof of criminal intent to falsify under oath. A mere variance in allegations and evidence, or an error in fact, does not automatically constitute perjury, especially when the statements are made in the course of a judicial proceeding where parties are expected to assert their claims vigorously. The charge of perjury under these circumstances constituted an improper use of the criminal justice system to harass a party in a corporate litigation. Thus, the Court granted the petition and nullified the proceedings for perjury.