Lawyerly

GR No. 179874

2015-06-22

ADELFA DIO TOLENTINO v. SPS. MARIA JERERA

PERALTA, J.

In Ateneo de Naga University v. Manalo[38], it was held that the verification requirement is deemed substantially complied with when only one of the heirs-plaintiffs, who has sufficient knowledge and belief to swear to the truth of the allegations in the petition, signed the verification attached to it. Such verification was deemed sufficient assurance that matters alleged in the petition have been made in good faith or are true and correct, not merely speculative. Likewise, liberality and leniency were accorded in some cases where those who did not sign were relatives of the lone signatory[39] of the certification against forum shopping when they all share a common interest in a disputed property and invoke a common cause of action or defense. As held in Iglesia Ni Cristo v. Hon. Thelma A. Ponferrada[40]

GR No. 197151

2012-10-22

SM LAND v. CITY OF MANILA

PERALTA, J.

Time and again, this Court has held that rules of procedure are established to secure substantial justice.[19] Being instruments for the speedy and efficient administration of justice, they must be used to achieve such end, not to derail it.[20] In particular, when a strict and literal application of the rules on non-forum shopping and verification will result in a patent denial of substantial justice, these may be liberally construed.[21]

GR No. 158239

2012-01-25

PRISCILLA ALMA JOSE v. RAMON C. JAVELLANA

BERSAMIN, J.

Instead, we see the situation of resorting to two inconsistent remedial approaches to be the result of the tactical misjudgment by Javellana's counsel on the efficacy of the appeal to stave off his caretaker's eviction from the parcels of land and to prevent the development of them into a residential or commercial subdivision pending the appeal. In the petition for certiorari, Javellana explicitly averred that his appeal was "inadequate and not speedy to prevent private respondent Alma Jose and her transferee/assignee xxx from developing and disposing of the subject property to other parties to the total deprivation of petitioner's rights of possession and ownership over the subject property," and that the dismissal by the RTC had "emboldened private respondents to fully develop the property and for respondent Alma Jose to file an ejectment case against petitioner's overseer xxx."[35] Thereby, it became far-fetched that Javellana brought the petition for certiorari in violation of the policy against forum shopping.

GR No. 169292

2011-04-13

SPS. FRANCISCO DE GUZMAN v. CESAR OCHOA

MENDOZA, J.

Similarly, the rule requiring the submission of such certification of non-forum shopping, although obligatory, is not jurisdictional.[7] The certification requirement is rooted in the principle that a party-litigant shall

GR No. 176657

2010-09-01

DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS v. FRANCO T. FALCON

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

In sum, BCA failed to successfully rebut the presumption that the official acts (of Mr. Custodio and Mr. Zuniga) were done in good faith and in the regular performance of official duty.[58] Even assuming the verifications of the petition suffered from some defect, we have time and again ruled that "[t]he ends of justice are better served when cases are determined on the merits -- after all parties are given full opportunity to ventilate their causes and defenses -- rather than on technicality or some procedural imperfections."[59] In other words, the Court may suspend or even disregard rules when the demands of justice so require.[60]

GR No. 161368

2010-04-05

MEDISERV v. CA

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

In Ateneo de Naga University v. Manalo, [31] this Court acknowledged that it has relaxed, under justifiable circumstances, the rule requiring the submission of these certifications and has applied the rule of substantial compliance under justifiable circumstances with respect to the contents of the certification. It also conceded that if this Court has allowed the belated filing of the certification against forum shopping for compelling reasons in previous rulings, with more reason should it sanction the timely submission of such certification though the proof of the signatory's authority was submitted thereafter.

GR No. 173181

2010-03-03

HUTAMA-RSEA v. KCD BUILDERS CORPORATION

NACHURA, J.

In Ateneo de Naga University v. Manalo,[16] we held that the lone signature of the University President was sufficient to fulfill the verification requirement, because such officer had sufficient knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations in the petition.

GR No. 167710

2009-06-05

PEOPLE v. JOVEN DE GRANO

PERALTA, J.

With respect to the certification of non-forum shopping, it has been held that the certification requirement is rooted in the principle that a party-litigant shall not be allowed to pursue simultaneous remedies in different fora, as this practice is detrimental to an orderly judicial procedure.[39] However, this Court has relaxed, under justifiable circumstances, the rule requiring the submission of such certification considering that although it is obligatory, it is not jurisdictional.[40] Not being jurisdictional, it can be relaxed under the rule of substantial compliance.

GR No. 170625

2008-10-17

BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. CA

TINGA, J.

With more reason should the instant case be allowed since petitioner did submit a certification against forum shopping, failing only to show proof that the signatory was authorized to do so. In Shipside Incorporated v. Court of Appeals,[44] Ateneo de Naga University v. Manalo,[45] Pascual & Santos Inc. v. The Member of the Tramo Wakas Neighborhood Association, Inc.[46] and China Banking Corporation v. Mondragon International Philippines, Inc.,[47] the Court permitted the subsequent submission of proof of authority to sign the certification against forum shopping.

GR No. 168111

2008-07-04

ANTONIO TAN v. AMELITO BALLENA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

In Ateneo de Naga University v. Manalo,[45] we also ruled that there was substantial compliance with the requirement of verification when only one of the petitioners, the President of the University, signed for and on behalf of the institution and its officers.

GR NO. 159422

2008-03-28

CHINESE YMCA OF MANILA DOWNTOWN v. REGISTER OF DEEDS

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Commission,[36] Vicar International Construction, Inc. v. FEB Leasing and Finance Corporation,[37] Ateneo De Naga University v. Manalo,[38] China Banking Corporation v. Mondragon International Philippines, Inc.,[39] LDP Marketing, Inc. v. Monter,[40] Varorient Shipping Co., Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission,[41] and most recently in Cana v. Evangelical Free Church of the Philippines ,[42] and continues to be the controlling doctrine. As in the aforementioned cases, YMCA rectified its failure to submit proof of Golangco's authority to sign the Verification and Certification on Non-Forum Shopping on its behalf when it attached in its Motion for Reconsideration a Secretary's Certificate issued by its

GR NO. 168943

2006-10-27

IGLESIA NI CRISTO v. THELMA A. PONFERRADA

CALLEJO, SR., J.

The issue in the present case is not the lack of verification but the sufficiency of one executed by only one of plaintiffs. This Court held in Ateneo de Naga University v. Manalo,[22] that the verification requirement is deemed substantially complied with when, as in the present case, only one of the heirs-plaintiffs, who has sufficient knowledge and belief to swear to the truth of the allegations in the petition (complaint), signed the verification attached to it. Such verification is deemed sufficient assurance that the matters alleged in the petition have been made in good faith or are true and correct, not merely speculative.

GR NO. 147989

2006-02-20

ROLANDO CLAVECILLA v. TERESITO QUITAIN

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

[23] Ateneo de Naga University v. Manalo, G.R. No. 160455, May 9, 2005, 458 SCRA 325, 335.

	GR No. 179874 2015-06-22	ADELFA DIO TOLENTINO v. SPS. MARIA JERERA PERALTA, J.
In Ateneo de Naga University v. Manalo[38], it was held that the verification requirement is deemed substantially complied with when only one of the heirs-plaintiffs, who has sufficient knowledge and belief to swear to the truth of the allegations in the petition, signed the verification attached to it. Such verification was deemed sufficient assurance that matters alleged in the petition have been made in good faith or are true and correct, not merely speculative. Likewise, liberality and leniency were accorded in some cases where those who did not sign were relatives of the lone signatory[39] of the certification against forum shopping when they all share a common interest in a disputed property and invoke a common cause of action or defense. As held in Iglesia Ni Cristo v. Hon. Thelma A. Ponferrada[40]
	GR No. 197151 2012-10-22	SM LAND v. CITY OF MANILA PERALTA, J.
Time and again, this Court has held that rules of procedure are established to secure substantial justice.[19] Being instruments for the speedy and efficient administration of justice, they must be used to achieve such end, not to derail it.[20] In particular, when a strict and literal application of the rules on non-forum shopping and verification will result in a patent denial of substantial justice, these may be liberally construed.[21]
	GR No. 158239 2012-01-25	PRISCILLA ALMA JOSE v. RAMON C. JAVELLANA BERSAMIN, J.
Instead, we see the situation of resorting to two inconsistent remedial approaches to be the result of the tactical misjudgment by Javellana's counsel on the efficacy of the appeal to stave off his caretaker's eviction from the parcels of land and to prevent the development of them into a residential or commercial subdivision pending the appeal. In the petition for certiorari, Javellana explicitly averred that his appeal was "inadequate and not speedy to prevent private respondent Alma Jose and her transferee/assignee xxx from developing and disposing of the subject property to other parties to the total deprivation of petitioner's rights of possession and ownership over the subject property," and that the dismissal by the RTC had "emboldened private respondents to fully develop the property and for respondent Alma Jose to file an ejectment case against petitioner's overseer xxx."[35] Thereby, it became far-fetched that Javellana brought the petition for certiorari in violation of the policy against forum shopping.
	GR No. 169292 2011-04-13	SPS. FRANCISCO DE GUZMAN v. CESAR OCHOA MENDOZA, J.
Similarly, the rule requiring the submission of such certification of non-forum shopping, although obligatory, is not jurisdictional.[7] The certification requirement is rooted in the principle that a party-litigant shall
	GR No. 176657 2010-09-01	DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS v. FRANCO T. FALCON LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In sum, BCA failed to successfully rebut the presumption that the official acts (of Mr. Custodio and Mr. Zuniga) were done in good faith and in the regular performance of official duty.[58] Even assuming the verifications of the petition suffered from some defect, we have time and again ruled that "[t]he ends of justice are better served when cases are determined on the merits -- after all parties are given full opportunity to ventilate their causes and defenses -- rather than on technicality or some procedural imperfections."[59] In other words, the Court may suspend or even disregard rules when the demands of justice so require.[60]
	GR No. 161368 2010-04-05	MEDISERV v. CA VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In Ateneo de Naga University v. Manalo, [31] this Court acknowledged that it has relaxed, under justifiable circumstances, the rule requiring the submission of these certifications and has applied the rule of substantial compliance under justifiable circumstances with respect to the contents of the certification. It also conceded that if this Court has allowed the belated filing of the certification against forum shopping for compelling reasons in previous rulings, with more reason should it sanction the timely submission of such certification though the proof of the signatory's authority was submitted thereafter.
	GR No. 173181 2010-03-03	HUTAMA-RSEA v. KCD BUILDERS CORPORATION NACHURA, J.
In Ateneo de Naga University v. Manalo,[16] we held that the lone signature of the University President was sufficient to fulfill the verification requirement, because such officer had sufficient knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations in the petition.
	GR No. 167710 2009-06-05	PEOPLE v. JOVEN DE GRANO PERALTA, J.
With respect to the certification of non-forum shopping, it has been held that the certification requirement is rooted in the principle that a party-litigant shall not be allowed to pursue simultaneous remedies in different fora, as this practice is detrimental to an orderly judicial procedure.[39] However, this Court has relaxed, under justifiable circumstances, the rule requiring the submission of such certification considering that although it is obligatory, it is not jurisdictional.[40] Not being jurisdictional, it can be relaxed under the rule of substantial compliance.
	GR No. 170625 2008-10-17	BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. CA TINGA, J.
With more reason should the instant case be allowed since petitioner did submit a certification against forum shopping, failing only to show proof that the signatory was authorized to do so. In Shipside Incorporated v. Court of Appeals,[44] Ateneo de Naga University v. Manalo,[45] Pascual & Santos Inc. v. The Member of the Tramo Wakas Neighborhood Association, Inc.[46] and China Banking Corporation v. Mondragon International Philippines, Inc.,[47] the Court permitted the subsequent submission of proof of authority to sign the certification against forum shopping.
	GR No. 168111 2008-07-04	ANTONIO TAN v. AMELITO BALLENA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In Ateneo de Naga University v. Manalo,[45] we also ruled that there was substantial compliance with the requirement of verification when only one of the petitioners, the President of the University, signed for and on behalf of the institution and its officers.
	GR NO. 159422 2008-03-28	CHINESE YMCA OF MANILA DOWNTOWN v. REGISTER OF DEEDS AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Commission,[36] Vicar International Construction, Inc. v. FEB Leasing and Finance Corporation,[37] Ateneo De Naga University v. Manalo,[38] China Banking Corporation v. Mondragon International Philippines, Inc.,[39] LDP Marketing, Inc. v. Monter,[40] Varorient Shipping Co., Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission,[41] and most recently in Cana v. Evangelical Free Church of the Philippines ,[42] and continues to be the controlling doctrine. As in the aforementioned cases, YMCA rectified its failure to submit proof of Golangco's authority to sign the Verification and Certification on Non-Forum Shopping on its behalf when it attached in its Motion for Reconsideration a Secretary's Certificate issued by its
	GR NO. 168943 2006-10-27	IGLESIA NI CRISTO v. THELMA A. PONFERRADA CALLEJO, SR., J.
The issue in the present case is not the lack of verification but the sufficiency of one executed by only one of plaintiffs. This Court held in Ateneo de Naga University v. Manalo,[22] that the verification requirement is deemed substantially complied with when, as in the present case, only one of the heirs-plaintiffs, who has sufficient knowledge and belief to swear to the truth of the allegations in the petition (complaint), signed the verification attached to it. Such verification is deemed sufficient assurance that the matters alleged in the petition have been made in good faith or are true and correct, not merely speculative.
	GR NO. 147989 2006-02-20	ROLANDO CLAVECILLA v. TERESITO QUITAIN AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
[23] Ateneo de Naga University v. Manalo, G.R. No. 160455, May 9, 2005, 458 SCRA 325, 335.

ATENEO DE NAGA UNIVERSITY v. JOVITA S. MANALO