Case Digest: LEONARDO C. ANDRES, et al. v. JUSTICE SECRETARY SERAFIN CUEVAS, et al.

LEONARDO C. ANDRES, et al. v. JUSTICE SECRETARY SERAFIN CUEVAS, et al.

460 SCRA 38 (2005), THIRD DIVISION

Leonardo Andres, et al. (Andres, et al.) were the major stockholders of the Rural Bank of Pandi, Bulacan who filed several petitions before the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) against Belen G. Santos, et al. (Santos, et al.) who were the minority stockholders of the said bank. They alleged that Santos et al. committed acts of mismanagement, fraud and conflict of interests as directors and officers of the bank which resulted in the unlawful deprivation of income from the Andres‘, et al. investments. As a response, Santos, et al. charged Andres, et al. before the Metropolitan Trial Court with perjury for making willful and corrupt assertions of falsehood on material matters.

The City Prosecutor issued its resolution finding probable cause against Andres, et al. for perjury. They filed a Petition for Review which was dismissed by the Department of Justice‘s Assistant Chief of State Prosecutor. They appealed to the Office of the Secretary of Justice. Meanwhile SEC in its decision favored them.

Secretary of Justice Sivestre H. Bello III directed, by resolution, the withdrawal of the Information for perjury against the Andres, et al. Around a year later, Justice Secretary Serafin R. Cuevas directed the refiling of the Information for perjury against Andres, et al. who moved for a reconsideration of the resolution of Secretary Cuevas. This was later on denied. Andres, et al. filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the Court of Appeals (CA). The verification and certification against non forum shopping appended to the petition was signed only by Andres. Andres, et al. subsequently filed however, an Amended Petition to which was appended to the verification and certification against non forum shopping signed by all of them. The CA dismissed the original petition. Andres, et al. filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied by lack of merit by the CA. Hence, this petition for review on Certiorari.

ISSUE:

Whether or not there was a grave abuse of discretion on the part of Justice Cuevas‘ resolution finding probable cause for perjury against the petitioners

HELD:

A party is given the right to file an amended pleading within the time and upon the conditions specified and without the necessity of obtaining leave of court since a party may amend his pleading once, whether a new cause of action or change in theory is introduced, as a matter of right at any time before a responsive pleading is served. Moreover, amendment of pleadings is favored and should be liberally allowed in the furtherance of justice in order to determine every case as far as possible on its merits without regard to technicalities.

The appellae court‘s procedural faux pas notwithstanding, on the merits, the petition fails.

Consistent with its policy of non-interference in the conduct of preliminary investigation, and to leave to the investigating prosecutor sufficient latitude of discretion in the exercise of what constitutes sufficient evidence as will establish probable cause for filing of an information against a supposed offender, this Court finds no reason to disturb the finding of the appellate court that no grave abuse of discretion attended then Justice Cuevas‘ resolution finding probable cause for perjury against