CRIM PRO SAAVEDRA VS DOJ

SAAVEDRA v DOJFACTSOwners of Pine Philippines, Inc. (PPI) and respondent Gregorio Ramos, sold their shares of stock to petitioner Saavedra. AMemorandum of Agreement, which contained an automatic rescission clause, was executed to evidence the transaction.Petitioner withheld payment for the reason that sellers failed to comply with their warranties, however the balance wasdeposited in escrow to be released once the warranties were complied with.Petitioners filed in behalf of PPI a verified civil complaint for damages against private respondent alleging that he (petitionerwas the President and principal stockholder of the company. Respondent questioned petitioner’s capacity to sue in behalf ofPPI claiming that petitioner ceased to be its president when the sale of PPI stocks was automatically rescinded.After executing a document entitled “Rescission of MoA”, Ramos filed a case with the SEC praying that the rescission bedeclared valid and legal. During the pendency of the case in SEC, private respondent filed a criminal case for perjury againstpetitioner alleging that petitioner perjured himself when he declared in the verification of the complaint that he was thePresident of PPI.In his answer, petitioner contended that since the issues of ownership and automatic rescission were still pending unresolvedin the SEC, there was no basis to charge that he asserted a falsehood in claiming to be President. Despite this, Provincialfiscal found a prima facie case for perjury against him. Petitioner sought a review with the DOJ, which also upheld the findingof probable cause for perjury.ISSUEW/N DOJ should have deferred the proceedings since the issue was still pending with the SEC.HELDYES. Under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, courts cannot and will not determine a controversy involving a question whichis within the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal having been placed within its special competence. In such cases thejudicial process is suspended pending referral to the administrative body for its view on the dispute.