This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2012-10-22 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| It must be kept in mind that while the requirement of the certification of non-forum shopping is mandatory, nonetheless, the requirements must not be interpreted too literally and, thus, defeat the objective of preventing the undesirable practice of forum shopping.[18] | |||||
|
2010-03-18 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| The submission of the board secretary's certificate through a motion for reconsideration of the CA's decision dismissing the petition for certiorari may be considered a substantial compliance with the Rules of Court.[35] Yet, this rule presupposes that the authorizing board resolution, the approval of which is certified to by the secretary's certification, was passed within the reglementary period for filing the petition. This particular situation does not, however, obtain under the premises. The records yield the following material dates and incidents: Eagle Ridge received the May 7, 2007 resolution of the BLR Director on March 9, 2007, thus giving it 60 days or up to May 8, 2007 to file a petition for certiorari, as it in fact filed its petition on April 18, 2007 before the CA. The authorization for its counsel, however, was only issued in a meeting of its board on May 10, 2007 or a couple of days beyond the 60-day reglementary period referred to in filing a certiorari action. Thus, there was no substantial compliance with the Rules. | |||||
|
2008-08-11 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| It must be kept in mind that while the requirement of the certificate of non-forum shopping is mandatory, nonetheless the requirement must not be interpreted too literally and thus defeat the objective of preventing the undesirable practice of forum shopping.[27] In Uy v. Land Bank of the Philippines,[28] the Court ruled, thus:The admission of the petition after the belated filing of the certification, therefore, is not unprecedented. In those cases where the Court excused non-compliance with the requirements, there were special circumstances or compelling reasons making the strict application of the rule clearly unjustified. In the case at bar, the apparent merits of the substantive aspects of the case should be deemed as a "special circumstance" or "compelling reason" for the reinstatement of the petition. x x x[29] | |||||
|
2008-03-28 |
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 | |||||