Lawyerly

GR No. 173186

2015-09-16

JARDELEZA, J.

In Sy Chin v. Court of Appeals,[34] we recognized the flaw in the certification against forum shopping which was signed only by the counsel, and not by the party. In LDP Marketing, Inc. v. Monter,[35] there was initially no proof that the one who signed the certification was authorized to do so in behalf of the corporation. In these two cases, we nonetheless chose to overlook the procedural lapses in the interest of substantial justice and the existence of prima facie merit in the petitions.

GR No. 183788

2010-04-05

KRIZIA KATRINA TY-DE ZUZUARREGUI v. JOSELITO C. VILLAROSA

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

In Sy Chin v. Court of Appeals, [37] we categorically stated that while the petition was flawed as the certification of non-forum shopping was signed only by counsel and not by the party, such procedural lapse may be overlooked in the interest of substantial justice. [38] Finally, the Court has also on occasion held that the party need not sign the verification;a party's representative, lawyer or any person who personally knows the truth of the facts alleged in the pleading may sign the verification. [39]

GR No. 166988

2009-07-03

HEIRS OF EMILIANO SAN PEDRO v. PABLITO GARCIA

PERALTA, J.

Even if the Rules of Court may not apply in the proceedings before the DARAB, the CA was correct in pointing out that the Revised Rules of the DARAB itself impose a fifteen-day reglementary period to appeal. Since the perfection of an appeal within the statutory or reglementary period is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional, the failure of petitioners to so perfect their appeal rendered the questioned decision final and executory.[45] This rule is founded upon the principle that the right to appeal is not part of due process of law, but is a mere statutory privilege to be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law.[46]

GR No. 167710

2009-06-05

PEOPLE v. JOVEN DE GRANO

PERALTA, J.

In Donato v. Court of Appeals[41] and Wee v. Galvez,[42] the Court noted that the petitioners were already in the United States; thus, the signing of the certification by their authorized representatives was deemed sufficient compliance with the Rules. In Sy Chin v. Court of Appeals,[43] the Court upheld substantial justice and ruled that the failure of the parties to sign the certification may be overlooked, as the parties' case was meritorious. In Torres v. Specialized Packaging and Development Corporation,[44] the Court also found, among other reasons, that the extreme difficulty to secure all the required signatures and the apparent merits of the substantive aspects of the case constitute compelling reasons for allowing the petition.

GR No. 168111

2008-07-04

ANTONIO TAN v. AMELITO BALLENA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Under justifiable circumstances, we have already allowed the relaxation of the requirements of verification and certification so that the ends of justice may be better served.[42] Verification is simply intended to secure an assurance that the allegations in the pleading are true and correct and not the product of the imagination or a matter of speculation, and that the pleading is filed in good faith; while the purpose of the aforesaid certification is to prohibit and penalize the evils of forum shopping.[43]

GR NO. 147989

2006-02-20

ROLANDO CLAVECILLA v. TERESITO QUITAIN

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

In Donato v. Court of Appeals[39] and Wee v. Galvez[40] the Court noted that the petitioners were already in the United States, thus the signing of the certification by their authorized representatives was deemed sufficient compliance with the rules. In Orbeta v. Sendiong[41] the Court found that the annulment of judgment filed by the parties was meritorious thus the certification signed by the daughter of petitioner who had a general power of attorney in her favor was deemed sufficient. In Sy Chin v. Court of Appeals[42] the Court also upheld substantial justice and ruled that the failure of the parties to sign the certification may be overlooked as the parties' case was meritorious.

GR NO. 141973

2005-06-28

PHILIPPINE PHOSPHATE FERTILIZER CORPORATION v. CIR

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

In Damasco vs. NLRC,[34] the certifications against forum shopping were erroneously signed by petitioners' lawyers, which, generally, would warrant the outright dismissal of their actions.[35] We resolved however that as a matter of social justice, technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way of equitably and completely resolving the rights and obligations of the parties.[36] In Cavile vs. Heirs of Clarita Cavile,[37] we likewise held that the merits of the substantive aspects of the case may be deemed as "special circumstance" for the Court to take cognizance of a petition although the certification against forum shopping was executed and signed by only one of the petitioners.[38] Finally, in Sy Chin vs. Court of Appeals,[39] we categorically stated that while a petition may be flawed as the certificate of non-forum shopping was signed only by counsel and not by the party, such procedural lapse may be overlooked in the interest of substantial justice.[40]

GR NO. 140189

2005-02-28

GREAT SOUTHERN MARITIME SERVICES CORPORATION v. JENNIFER ANNE B. ACUÑA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Thus, in Sy Chin vs. Court of Appeals,[34] we held that the procedural lapse of a party's counsel in signing the certificate of non-forum shopping may be overlooked if the interests of substantial justice would thereby be served. Further, in Damasco vs. NLRC,[35] we noted that the certificate of non-forum shopping was executed by the petitioners' counsel, but nevertheless resolved the case on its merits for the reason that "technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way of equitably and completely resolving the equity and obligations of the parties to a labor case."

GR No. 141117

2004-03-25

UNITED PULP v. UNITED PULP

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

In Sy Chin vs. Court of Appeals,[9] we held that "the petition is flawed as the certificate of non-forum shopping was signed only by counsel and not by the party." The rule requires that it should be the plaintiff or principal party who should sign the certification, otherwise, this requirement would easily be circumvented by the signature of every counsel representing corporate parties.[10]

GR No. 150159

2003-07-25

TERESITA VILLAREAL MANIPOR v. SPS. PABLO AND ANTONIO RICAFORT

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

iii.] SUB-ISSUE - THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DENYING THEIR MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION FOR FAILURE TO STATE THE MATERIAL DATES AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 1, RULE 9, RIRCA.[15] Before we proceed to the main issue raised by petitioners, we must first address the two sub-issues stated in the assignment of errors. It appears that petitioners did not appeal from the Court of Appeals resolutions denying the first petition for annulment of compromise judgment and the subsequent motion for reconsideration brought by petitioners in CA-G.R. SP No. 64952, as a result of which the same became final. Basic is the rule that perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law is not only mandatory but jurisdictional and failure to perfect an appeal has the effect of rendering the judgment or resolution final and executory.[16] Hence, petitioners are precluded from resurrecting any issue relative to these resolutions after they have lapsed into finality by operation of law.

GR No. 134981

2003-06-18

FREDELITO P. VITTO v. CA

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

Indeed, the law cannot protect a party who sleeps on his rights,[12] or does some acts inconsistent with its prosecution.

	GR No. 173186 2015-09-16	ANICETO UY v. CA JARDELEZA, J.
In Sy Chin v. Court of Appeals,[34] we recognized the flaw in the certification against forum shopping which was signed only by the counsel, and not by the party. In LDP Marketing, Inc. v. Monter,[35] there was initially no proof that the one who signed the certification was authorized to do so in behalf of the corporation. In these two cases, we nonetheless chose to overlook the procedural lapses in the interest of substantial justice and the existence of prima facie merit in the petitions.
	GR No. 183788 2010-04-05	KRIZIA KATRINA TY-DE ZUZUARREGUI v. JOSELITO C. VILLAROSA VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In Sy Chin v. Court of Appeals, [37] we categorically stated that while the petition was flawed as the certification of non-forum shopping was signed only by counsel and not by the party, such procedural lapse may be overlooked in the interest of substantial justice. [38] Finally, the Court has also on occasion held that the party need not sign the verification;a party's representative, lawyer or any person who personally knows the truth of the facts alleged in the pleading may sign the verification. [39]
	GR No. 166988 2009-07-03	HEIRS OF EMILIANO SAN PEDRO v. PABLITO GARCIA PERALTA, J.
Even if the Rules of Court may not apply in the proceedings before the DARAB, the CA was correct in pointing out that the Revised Rules of the DARAB itself impose a fifteen-day reglementary period to appeal. Since the perfection of an appeal within the statutory or reglementary period is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional, the failure of petitioners to so perfect their appeal rendered the questioned decision final and executory.[45] This rule is founded upon the principle that the right to appeal is not part of due process of law, but is a mere statutory privilege to be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law.[46]
	GR No. 167710 2009-06-05	PEOPLE v. JOVEN DE GRANO PERALTA, J.
In Donato v. Court of Appeals[41] and Wee v. Galvez,[42] the Court noted that the petitioners were already in the United States; thus, the signing of the certification by their authorized representatives was deemed sufficient compliance with the Rules. In Sy Chin v. Court of Appeals,[43] the Court upheld substantial justice and ruled that the failure of the parties to sign the certification may be overlooked, as the parties' case was meritorious. In Torres v. Specialized Packaging and Development Corporation,[44] the Court also found, among other reasons, that the extreme difficulty to secure all the required signatures and the apparent merits of the substantive aspects of the case constitute compelling reasons for allowing the petition.
	GR No. 168111 2008-07-04	ANTONIO TAN v. AMELITO BALLENA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Under justifiable circumstances, we have already allowed the relaxation of the requirements of verification and certification so that the ends of justice may be better served.[42] Verification is simply intended to secure an assurance that the allegations in the pleading are true and correct and not the product of the imagination or a matter of speculation, and that the pleading is filed in good faith; while the purpose of the aforesaid certification is to prohibit and penalize the evils of forum shopping.[43]
	GR NO. 147989 2006-02-20	ROLANDO CLAVECILLA v. TERESITO QUITAIN AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In Donato v. Court of Appeals[39] and Wee v. Galvez[40] the Court noted that the petitioners were already in the United States, thus the signing of the certification by their authorized representatives was deemed sufficient compliance with the rules. In Orbeta v. Sendiong[41] the Court found that the annulment of judgment filed by the parties was meritorious thus the certification signed by the daughter of petitioner who had a general power of attorney in her favor was deemed sufficient. In Sy Chin v. Court of Appeals[42] the Court also upheld substantial justice and ruled that the failure of the parties to sign the certification may be overlooked as the parties' case was meritorious.
	GR NO. 141973 2005-06-28	PHILIPPINE PHOSPHATE FERTILIZER CORPORATION v. CIR AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In Damasco vs. NLRC,[34] the certifications against forum shopping were erroneously signed by petitioners' lawyers, which, generally, would warrant the outright dismissal of their actions.[35] We resolved however that as a matter of social justice, technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way of equitably and completely resolving the rights and obligations of the parties.[36] In Cavile vs. Heirs of Clarita Cavile,[37] we likewise held that the merits of the substantive aspects of the case may be deemed as "special circumstance" for the Court to take cognizance of a petition although the certification against forum shopping was executed and signed by only one of the petitioners.[38] Finally, in Sy Chin vs. Court of Appeals,[39] we categorically stated that while a petition may be flawed as the certificate of non-forum shopping was signed only by counsel and not by the party, such procedural lapse may be overlooked in the interest of substantial justice.[40]
	GR NO. 140189 2005-02-28	GREAT SOUTHERN MARITIME SERVICES CORPORATION v. JENNIFER ANNE B. ACUÑA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Thus, in Sy Chin vs. Court of Appeals,[34] we held that the procedural lapse of a party's counsel in signing the certificate of non-forum shopping may be overlooked if the interests of substantial justice would thereby be served. Further, in Damasco vs. NLRC,[35] we noted that the certificate of non-forum shopping was executed by the petitioners' counsel, but nevertheless resolved the case on its merits for the reason that "technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way of equitably and completely resolving the equity and obligations of the parties to a labor case."
	GR No. 141117 2004-03-25	UNITED PULP v. UNITED PULP SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In Sy Chin vs. Court of Appeals,[9] we held that "the petition is flawed as the certificate of non-forum shopping was signed only by counsel and not by the party." The rule requires that it should be the plaintiff or principal party who should sign the certification, otherwise, this requirement would easily be circumvented by the signature of every counsel representing corporate parties.[10]
	GR No. 150159 2003-07-25	TERESITA VILLAREAL MANIPOR v. SPS. PABLO AND ANTONIO RICAFORT YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
iii.] SUB-ISSUE - THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DENYING THEIR MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION FOR FAILURE TO STATE THE MATERIAL DATES AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 1, RULE 9, RIRCA.[15] Before we proceed to the main issue raised by petitioners, we must first address the two sub-issues stated in the assignment of errors. It appears that petitioners did not appeal from the Court of Appeals resolutions denying the first petition for annulment of compromise judgment and the subsequent motion for reconsideration brought by petitioners in CA-G.R. SP No. 64952, as a result of which the same became final. Basic is the rule that perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law is not only mandatory but jurisdictional and failure to perfect an appeal has the effect of rendering the judgment or resolution final and executory.[16] Hence, petitioners are precluded from resurrecting any issue relative to these resolutions after they have lapsed into finality by operation of law.
	GR No. 134981 2003-06-18	FREDELITO P. VITTO v. CA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Indeed, the law cannot protect a party who sleeps on his rights,[12] or does some acts inconsistent with its prosecution.

SY CHIN v. CA