This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2011-09-21 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| The Spouses Realubit argue that, in upholding its validity, both the RTC and the CA inordinately gave premium to the notarization of the 27 June 1997 Deed of Assignment executed by Biondo in favor of the Spouses Jaso. Calling attention to the latter's failure to present before the RTC said assignor or, at the very least, the witnesses to said document, the Spouses Realubit maintain that the testimony of Rolando Diaz, the Notary Public before whom the same was acknowledged, did not suffice to establish its authenticity and/or validity. They insist that notarization did not automatically and conclusively confer validity on said deed, since it is still entirely possible that Biondo did not execute said deed or, for that matter, appear before said notary public.[15] The dearth of merit in the Spouses Realubit's position is, however, immediately evident from the settled rule that documents acknowledged before notaries public are public documents which are admissible in evidence without necessity of preliminary proof as to their authenticity and due execution.[16] | |||||
|
2007-03-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| While the general rule is that the certificate of non-forum shopping must be signed by all the plaintiffs or petitioners in a case and the signature of only one of them is insufficient, this Court has stressed that the rules on forum shopping, which were designed to promote and facilitate the orderly administration of justice, should not be interpreted with such absolute literalness as to subvert its own ultimate and legitimate objective.[19] Strict compliance with the provision regarding the certificate of non-forum shopping underscores its mandatory nature in that the certification cannot be altogether dispensed with or its requirements completely disregarded.[20] It does not, however, thereby interdict substantial compliance with its provisions under justifiable circumstances.[21] | |||||
|
2006-11-02 |
VELASCO, JR., J. |
||||
| More so, in Calo, we also cited Cavile, et al. v. Heirs of Clarita Cavile, et. al.[31] where we held that there was substantial compliance with the Rules when only petitioner Thomas George Cavile, Sr. signed in behalf of all the other petitioners of the certificate of non-forum shopping as the petitioners, being relatives and co-owners of the properties in dispute, shared a common interest in them, had a common defense in the complaint for partition, and filed the petition as a collective, raising only one argument to defend their rights over the properties in question. We reasoned that there was sufficient basis for Cavile, Sr., to speak for and in behalf of his co-petitioners, stating that they had not filed any action or claim involving the same issues in another court or tribunal, nor was there other pending action or claim in another court or tribunal involving the same issues. In the same vein, this is also true in the instant case where petitioners have filed their petition as a collective, sharing a common interest and having a common single defense. | |||||
|
2005-06-28 |
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] | |||||