This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-01-19 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In case there are several petitioners, failure of one of the petitioners to sign the certificate against forum shopping constitutes a defect in the petition, which is a ground for dismissing the same.[80] In Tolentino v. Rivera,[81] we held that for the relaxation of said rule, two conditions must be complied with: first, petitioners must show justifiable cause for their failure to personally sign the certification; and second, they must also be able to prove that the outright dismissal of the petition would seriously impair the orderly administration of justice. Thus, to merit the court's consideration, petitioners must show reasonable cause for failure to personally sign the certification[82] and convince the court that the outright dismissal of the petition would defeat the administration of justice.[83] | |||||
|
2006-10-27 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Indeed, this Court strictly applied the rules on verification and certification against forum shopping as in the cases of Loquias v. Office of the Ombudsman[30] and Tolentino v. Rivera.[31] However, in both cases, the commonality of interest between or among the parties is wanting. In Loquias, the co-parties were being sued in their individual capacities as mayor, vice mayor and members of the municipal board. In Tolentino, the lone signature of Tolentino was held insufficient because he had no authority to sign in behalf of the Francisco spouses. In such case, the Court concluded that Tolentino merely used the spouses' names for whatever mileage he thought he could gain. It is thus clear from these cases that the commonality of interest is material in the relaxation of the Rules. | |||||