This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-01-16 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| It is settled that with respect to the contents of the certification against forum shopping, the rule of substantial compliance may be availed of.[22] This is because the requirement of strict compliance with the provisions regarding the certification of non-forum shopping merely underscores its mandatory nature in that the certification cannot be altogether dispensed with or its requirements completely disregarded.[23] It does not thereby interdict substantial compliance with its provisions under justifiable circumstances, as the Court finds in the instant case.[24] | |||||
|
2011-03-23 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Herein, however, Section 5 of Rule 7, supra, promulgated after the Denoso pronouncement, provides that "the dismissal of the case (is) without prejudice, unless otherwise provided." In this connection, the apt precedent is Heirs of Juan Valdez v. Court of Appeals,[32] where the respondent corporation filed two petitions for certiorari in the CA, the first of which was dismissed without prejudice due to insufficient certification. After receiving the resolution dismissing the first petition, the respondent corporation refiled its petition, which was docketed and raffled to another division of the CA. The issue of whether the filing of the second petition constituted forum shopping reached this Court, which resolved the issue thuswise: We have no doubt that it was within the CA's power and prerogative to issue what either resolution decreed without committing an abuse of discretion amounting to lack of excess of jurisdiction. In the first May 5, 2003 Resolution, the CA correctly dismissed the petition for the deficiency it found in the non-forum shopping certification. Section 5, Rule 7 of the Revised Rules of Court provides that "Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be curable by mere amendment of the complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon motion and after hearing." On the other hand, the requirement specific to petitions filed with the appellate court simply provides as a penalty that the failure of the petitioner to comply with the listed requirements, among them the need for a certification against forum shopping, "shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition." Thus, the Ninth Division correctly dismissed the petition without prejudice. | |||||
|
2011-02-02 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| One final note. We cannot help but be disturbed by the carelessness exhibited by the CA, particularly the JRD, in the sending of notices to parties. We call the attention of the CA to take to heart what this Court said in Heirs of Juan Valdez v. Court of Appeals:[14] | |||||