This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2002-07-05 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| of record even proffered the disgraceful and false reason that his hapless secretary had overlooked the certification and failed to attach it to the complaint.[12] Indeed the unmistakable facts show that the certification could not have been inadvertently left out since it was executed only on 17 October 1994 or long after the filing of the ejectment complaint on 30 August 1994 and only after petitioners called the trial courts attention to the fatal omission. Furthermore, the certification was submitted to the MTCC on 22 November 1994 or more than one (1) year from the early part of November 1993 when respondents first demanded that petitioners vacate the disputed premises. Clearly, respondents' observance of Administrative Circular No. 04-94 was consummated only after the expiration of the one (1)-year period to commence the ejectment suit counted from the first demand.[13] Evidently, the reglementary period for filing the complaint for unlawful detainer had passed by then. In Tomarong v. Lubguban[14] where we rejected the plea of "substantial compliance" for a certification submitted after the claim had prescribed, we stressed - x x x x In the instant case, we cannot consider the subsequent filing of the required certification a substantial compliance with the requirements of the Circular, the same having been submitted only after the lapse of eighteen (18) days from the date of filing of the protests. Quite obviously, the reglementary period for filing the protest had, by then, already expired x x x x It should be emphasized that the mere submission of a certification under Administrative Circular No. 04-94 after the filing of a motion to dismiss on the ground of non-compliance thereof does not necessarily operate as a substantial compliance; otherwise, the Circular would lose its value or efficacy. It bears stressing that the MTCC cannot admit the belated certification on the ground that plaintiffs (respondents) were not anyway guilty of actual forum shopping. The distinction between the prohibition against forum shopping and the certification requirement should | |||||