Case Digest: ALICIA E. ASTURIAS v. ATTYS. MANUEL SERRANO AND EMILIANO SAMSON

ALICIA E. ASTURIAS v. ATTYS. MANUEL SERRANO AND EMILIANO SAMSON

476 SCRA 97 (2005)

In order for perjury to lie, it must be shown and proved that the defendant willfully and deliberately made the false statement.

Dr. Alicia E. Asturias filed a complaint for specific performance and damages against Fedman Development Corporation (FDC) and Fedman Suite Condominium Corporation (FSCC) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City. The RTC ruled in favor of Dr. Asturias. The sheriff assigned at the RTC served a Notice of Garnishment upon unit owners including respondents, tenants, and occupants of the FSCC building.

FSCC filed a Petition to Annul Judgment before the Court of Appeals alleging that no motion for new trial, appeal, petition for relief from judgment or other appropriate remedies could have been availed of by Austria because the assailed RTC Decision has attained finality without their fault when it was discovered in March 2003. Serrano and Samson verified the same under oath.

Dr. Asturias lodged before the IBP an administrative complaint against Serrano and Samson, alleging that they committed perjury by knowingly making an untruthful statement under oath for the petition is false because FSCC had been duly notified of the assailed RTC Decision citing the Sheriff’s Report showing that copies of the Decision of the appellate court and the Writ of Execution issued by the trial court were personally served upon Norma Estella, Administrative Secretary of FSCC.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Serrano and Samson are guilty of perjury

HELD:

The burden of proof in administrative complaints against lawyers rests on the complainant who must establish his charge by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof. To hold one liable for perjury which is the deliberate making of untruthful statements upon any material matter, before a competent person authorized to administer oath, in cases in which the law requires such oath, Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code requires that the following requisites must concur: (a) the accused made a statement under oath or executed an affidavit upon a material matter; (b) the statement or affidavit was made before a competent officer, authorized to receive and administer oaths; (c) in the statement or affidavit, the accused made a willful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood; and (d) the sworn statement or affidavit containing the falsity is required by law or made for a legal purpose. As to the third requisite, good faith or lack of malice is a defense.

This Court finds that complainant failed to prove that respondents deliberately and willfully made the questioned assertion in the verification vis a vis the allegation in the Petition for Annulment of Judgment. The Sheriff’s Report merely shows that copy of the appellate court’s decision was received by one Norma Estella. The Motion to Archive/Suspend Proceedings in the Petition to Annul the RTC decision, which was filed not by respondents but by another counsel, merely shows that copy of the trial court’s decision was received by a certain Atty. Quintin Bautista. And the records do not show that respondents, who were not parties to the complaint for specific performance filed by complainant, themselves received a copy of the decision of the RTC or knew about it prior to March 2003.

This Court will not hesitate to mete out proper disciplinary punishment upon lawyers who are shown to have failed to live up to their sworn duties, but neither will it hesitate to extend its protective arm to them when the accusation against them is not indubitably proven. In fine, since complainant failed to discharge the onus of proving her charges against respondents by clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence, her present petition for review of the IBP’s dismissal of her complaint must fail.