Lawyerly

GR No. 168313

2010-10-06

BRION, J.

The CA, however, found that BPI failed to comply with the procedural requirements on non-forum shopping.[36] Citing Sec. 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, the CA ruled that the requirement that a petition should sign the certificate of non-forum shopping applies even to corporations since the Rules of Court do not distinguish between natural and civil persons.[37] Digital Microwave Corp. v. Court of Appeals, et al.[38] holds that "where a petitioner is corporation, the certification against forum shopping should be signed by its duly authorized director or representative."

GR No. 174149

2010-09-08

J. TIOSEJO INVESTMENT CORP. v. SPS. BENJAMIN AND ELEANOR ANG

PEREZ, J.

With the foregoing procedural antecedents, the initial 15-day extension granted by the CA and the injunction under Sec. 4, Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure against further extensions "except for the most compelling reason", it was clearly inexcusable for petitioner to expediently plead its counsel's heavy workload as ground for seeking an additional extension of 10 days within which to file its petition for review. To our mind, petitioner would do well to remember that, rather than the low gate to which parties are unreasonably required to stoop, procedural rules are designed for the orderly conduct of proceedings and expeditious settlement of cases in the courts of law. Like all rules, they are required to be followed[50] and utter disregard of the same cannot be expediently rationalized by harping on the policy of liberal construction[51] which was never intended as an unfettered license to disregard the letter of the law or, for that matter, a convenient excuse to substitute substantial compliance for regular adherence thereto. When it comes to compliance with time rules, the Court cannot afford inexcusable delay.[52]

GR NO. 172174

2009-07-09

DAVAO CONTRACTORS DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE v. MARILYN A. PASAWA

QUISUMBING, J.

The reason the certification of non-forum shopping is required to be accomplished by the plaintiff or principal party himself is because he has actual knowledge of whether he has initiated similar actions or proceedings in different courts or agencies.[15] In case the plaintiff or principal party is a juridical entity, such as petitioner, the certification may be signed by an authorized person who has personal knowledge of the facts required to be established by the documents.[16]

GR No. 149660

2009-01-20

MARANAW HOTELS v. CA

PUNO, C.J.

Petitioner relies upon this Court's ruling in Digital Microwave Corp. v. Court of Appeals[15] to show that its Personnel Director has been duly authorized to sign pleadings for and in behalf of the petitioner. Petitioner, however, has taken the ruling in Digital Microwave out of context. The portion of the ruling in Digital Microwave upon which petitioner relies was in response to the issue of impossibility of compliance by juridical persons with the requirements of Circular 28-91.[16] The Court's identification of duly authorized officers or directors as the proper signatories of a certificate of non forum-shopping was in response to that issue. The ruling does not, however, ipso facto clothe a corporate officer or director with authority to execute a certificate of non-forum shopping by virtue of the former's position alone.

GR No. 155806

2008-04-08

TIBLE v. ROYAL SAVINGS

REYES, R.T., J.

In Digital Microwave Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[28] the Court affirmed the CA dismissal of a petition on the same ground, noting -

GR NO. 150865

2006-06-30

ART FUENTEBELLA v. DARLICA CASTRO

AZCUNA, J.

This requirement is intended to apply to both natural and juridical persons as Supreme Court Circular No. 28-91 and Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court do not make a distinction between natural and juridical persons.[15] Where the petitioner is a corporation, the certification against forum shopping should be signed by its duly authorized director or representative.[16] This was enunciated in Eslaban, Jr. v. Vda. de Onorio,[17] where the Court held that if the real party-in-interest is a corporate body, an officer of the corporation can sign the certification against forum shopping so long as he has been duly authorized by a resolution of its board of directors.

GR NO. 132993

2005-06-29

LEVI STRAUSS v. VOGUE TRADERS CLOTHING COMPANY

AZCUNA, J.

In Digital Microwave Corp. v. CA,[34] this Court gave the rationale for this rule, namely, that the certification against forum shopping is required to be accomplished by petitioner himself because only the petitioner himself has actual knowledge of whether or not he has initiated similar actions or proceedings in different courts or agencies. Even his counsel may be unaware of such fact as he may only be aware of the action for which he has been retained. As to corporations, the law requires that the certification could be made by its duly authorized director or officer. The Court also stresses that the petitioner's non-compliance and utter disregard of the rules cannot be rationalized by invoking the policy of liberal construction.

GR NO. 152392

2005-05-26

EXPERTRAVEL v. CA

CALLEJO, SR., J.

It is settled that the requirement to file a certificate of non-forum shopping is mandatory[8] and that the failure to comply with this requirement cannot be excused. The certification is a peculiar and personal responsibility of the party, an assurance given to the court or other tribunal that there are no other pending cases involving basically the same parties, issues and causes of action. Hence, the certification must be accomplished by the party himself because he has actual knowledge of whether or not he has initiated similar actions or proceedings in different courts or tribunals. Even his counsel may be unaware of such facts.[9] Hence, the requisite certification executed by the plaintiff's counsel will not suffice.[10]

GR No. 147394

2004-08-11

SPS. MANUEL AND ROSEMARIE WEE v. ROSARIO D. GALVEZ

QUISUMBING, J.

Rule 7, Section 5 of the Rules of Court, requires that the certification should be signed by the "petitioner or principal party" himself. The rationale behind this is "because only the petitioner himself has actual knowledge of whether or not he has initiated similar actions or proceedings in different courts or agencies."[29] However, the rationale does not apply where, as in this case, it is the attorney-in-fact who instituted the action. The Special Power of Attorney in this instance was constituted precisely to authorize Grace Galvez to file and prosecute suits on behalf of respondent, who was no longer resident of the Philippines but of New York, U.S.A. As respondent points out, it is Grace Galvez, as attorney-in-fact for her, who has actual and personal knowledge whether she initiated similar actions or proceedings before various courts on the same issue on respondent's behalf. Said circumstance constitutes reasonable cause to allow the attorney-in-fact, and not the respondent, as plaintiff in Civil Case No. Q-99-37372 to personally sign the Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping. Under the circumstances of this case, we hold that there has been proper compliance with the rule proscribing forum shopping. As we previously held concerning Administrative Circular No. 04-94:The fact that the Circular requires that it be strictly complied with merely underscores its mandatory nature in that it cannot be dispensed with or its requirements altogether disregarded, but it does not thereby interdict substantial compliance with its provisions under justifiable circumstances.[30]

GR No. 138137

2001-03-08

PERLA S. ZULUETA v. ASIA BREWERY

PANGANIBAN, J.

The requirement that the petitioner should sign the certificate of non-forum shopping applies even to corporations, considering that the mandatory directives of the Circular and the Rules of Court make no distinction between natural and juridical persons. In this case, the Certification should have been signed "by a duly authorized director or officer of the corporation,"[13] who has knowledge of the matter being certified.[14] In Robern Development Corporation v. Quitain,[15] in which the Certification was signed by Atty. Nemesio S. Cañete who was the acting regional legal counsel of the National Power Corporation in Mindanao, the Court held that "he was not merely a retained lawyer, but an NPC in-house counsel and officer, whose basic function was to prepare legal pleadings and to represent NPC-Mindanao in legal cases. As regional legal counsel for the Mindanao area, he was the officer who was in the best position to verify the truthfulness and the correctness of the allegations in the Complaint for expropriation in Davao City. As internal legal counsel, he was also in the best position to know and to certify if an action for expropriation had already been filed and pending with the courts."

	GR No. 168313 2010-10-06	BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. CA BRION, J.
The CA, however, found that BPI failed to comply with the procedural requirements on non-forum shopping.[36] Citing Sec. 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, the CA ruled that the requirement that a petition should sign the certificate of non-forum shopping applies even to corporations since the Rules of Court do not distinguish between natural and civil persons.[37] Digital Microwave Corp. v. Court of Appeals, et al.[38] holds that "where a petitioner is corporation, the certification against forum shopping should be signed by its duly authorized director or representative."
	GR No. 174149 2010-09-08	J. TIOSEJO INVESTMENT CORP. v. SPS. BENJAMIN AND ELEANOR ANG PEREZ, J.
With the foregoing procedural antecedents, the initial 15-day extension granted by the CA and the injunction under Sec. 4, Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure against further extensions "except for the most compelling reason", it was clearly inexcusable for petitioner to expediently plead its counsel's heavy workload as ground for seeking an additional extension of 10 days within which to file its petition for review. To our mind, petitioner would do well to remember that, rather than the low gate to which parties are unreasonably required to stoop, procedural rules are designed for the orderly conduct of proceedings and expeditious settlement of cases in the courts of law. Like all rules, they are required to be followed[50] and utter disregard of the same cannot be expediently rationalized by harping on the policy of liberal construction[51] which was never intended as an unfettered license to disregard the letter of the law or, for that matter, a convenient excuse to substitute substantial compliance for regular adherence thereto. When it comes to compliance with time rules, the Court cannot afford inexcusable delay.[52]
	GR NO. 172174 2009-07-09	DAVAO CONTRACTORS DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE v. MARILYN A. PASAWA QUISUMBING, J.
The reason the certification of non-forum shopping is required to be accomplished by the plaintiff or principal party himself is because he has actual knowledge of whether he has initiated similar actions or proceedings in different courts or agencies.[15] In case the plaintiff or principal party is a juridical entity, such as petitioner, the certification may be signed by an authorized person who has personal knowledge of the facts required to be established by the documents.[16]
	GR No. 149660 2009-01-20	MARANAW HOTELS v. CA PUNO, C.J.
Petitioner relies upon this Court's ruling in Digital Microwave Corp. v. Court of Appeals[15] to show that its Personnel Director has been duly authorized to sign pleadings for and in behalf of the petitioner. Petitioner, however, has taken the ruling in Digital Microwave out of context. The portion of the ruling in Digital Microwave upon which petitioner relies was in response to the issue of impossibility of compliance by juridical persons with the requirements of Circular 28-91.[16] The Court's identification of duly authorized officers or directors as the proper signatories of a certificate of non forum-shopping was in response to that issue. The ruling does not, however, ipso facto clothe a corporate officer or director with authority to execute a certificate of non-forum shopping by virtue of the former's position alone.
	GR No. 155806 2008-04-08	TIBLE v. ROYAL SAVINGS REYES, R.T., J.
In Digital Microwave Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[28] the Court affirmed the CA dismissal of a petition on the same ground, noting -
	GR NO. 150865 2006-06-30	ART FUENTEBELLA v. DARLICA CASTRO AZCUNA, J.
This requirement is intended to apply to both natural and juridical persons as Supreme Court Circular No. 28-91 and Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court do not make a distinction between natural and juridical persons.[15] Where the petitioner is a corporation, the certification against forum shopping should be signed by its duly authorized director or representative.[16] This was enunciated in Eslaban, Jr. v. Vda. de Onorio,[17] where the Court held that if the real party-in-interest is a corporate body, an officer of the corporation can sign the certification against forum shopping so long as he has been duly authorized by a resolution of its board of directors.
	GR NO. 132993 2005-06-29	LEVI STRAUSS v. VOGUE TRADERS CLOTHING COMPANY AZCUNA, J.
In Digital Microwave Corp. v. CA,[34] this Court gave the rationale for this rule, namely, that the certification against forum shopping is required to be accomplished by petitioner himself because only the petitioner himself has actual knowledge of whether or not he has initiated similar actions or proceedings in different courts or agencies. Even his counsel may be unaware of such fact as he may only be aware of the action for which he has been retained. As to corporations, the law requires that the certification could be made by its duly authorized director or officer. The Court also stresses that the petitioner's non-compliance and utter disregard of the rules cannot be rationalized by invoking the policy of liberal construction.
	GR NO. 152392 2005-05-26	EXPERTRAVEL v. CA CALLEJO, SR., J.
It is settled that the requirement to file a certificate of non-forum shopping is mandatory[8] and that the failure to comply with this requirement cannot be excused. The certification is a peculiar and personal responsibility of the party, an assurance given to the court or other tribunal that there are no other pending cases involving basically the same parties, issues and causes of action. Hence, the certification must be accomplished by the party himself because he has actual knowledge of whether or not he has initiated similar actions or proceedings in different courts or tribunals. Even his counsel may be unaware of such facts.[9] Hence, the requisite certification executed by the plaintiff's counsel will not suffice.[10]
	GR No. 147394 2004-08-11	SPS. MANUEL AND ROSEMARIE WEE v. ROSARIO D. GALVEZ QUISUMBING, J.
Rule 7, Section 5 of the Rules of Court, requires that the certification should be signed by the "petitioner or principal party" himself. The rationale behind this is "because only the petitioner himself has actual knowledge of whether or not he has initiated similar actions or proceedings in different courts or agencies."[29] However, the rationale does not apply where, as in this case, it is the attorney-in-fact who instituted the action. The Special Power of Attorney in this instance was constituted precisely to authorize Grace Galvez to file and prosecute suits on behalf of respondent, who was no longer resident of the Philippines but of New York, U.S.A. As respondent points out, it is Grace Galvez, as attorney-in-fact for her, who has actual and personal knowledge whether she initiated similar actions or proceedings before various courts on the same issue on respondent's behalf. Said circumstance constitutes reasonable cause to allow the attorney-in-fact, and not the respondent, as plaintiff in Civil Case No. Q-99-37372 to personally sign the Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping. Under the circumstances of this case, we hold that there has been proper compliance with the rule proscribing forum shopping. As we previously held concerning Administrative Circular No. 04-94:The fact that the Circular requires that it be strictly complied with merely underscores its mandatory nature in that it cannot be dispensed with or its requirements altogether disregarded, but it does not thereby interdict substantial compliance with its provisions under justifiable circumstances.[30]
	GR No. 138137 2001-03-08	PERLA S. ZULUETA v. ASIA BREWERY PANGANIBAN, J.
The requirement that the petitioner should sign the certificate of non-forum shopping applies even to corporations, considering that the mandatory directives of the Circular and the Rules of Court make no distinction between natural and juridical persons. In this case, the Certification should have been signed "by a duly authorized director or officer of the corporation,"[13] who has knowledge of the matter being certified.[14] In Robern Development Corporation v. Quitain,[15] in which the Certification was signed by Atty. Nemesio S. Cañete who was the acting regional legal counsel of the National Power Corporation in Mindanao, the Court held that "he was not merely a retained lawyer, but an NPC in-house counsel and officer, whose basic function was to prepare legal pleadings and to represent NPC-Mindanao in legal cases. As regional legal counsel for the Mindanao area, he was the officer who was in the best position to verify the truthfulness and the correctness of the allegations in the Complaint for expropriation in Davao City. As internal legal counsel, he was also in the best position to know and to certify if an action for expropriation had already been filed and pending with the courts."

DIGITAL MICROWAVE CORPORATION v. CA