LEGAL NOTE 0036: ADDITIONAL NOTES ON VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION ON NON-FORUM SHOPPING.

 

SOURCE: MACTAN-CEBU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY VS. HEIRS OF ESTANISLAO MIÑOZA, NAMELY: THE HEIRS OF FILOMENO T. MIÑOZA, REPRESENTED BY LAUREANO M. MIÑOZA; THEHEIRS OF PEDRO T. MIÑOZA; AND THE HEIRS OF FLORENCIA T.MIÑOZA, REPRESENTED BY ANTONIO M. URBIZTONDO (G.R. NO. 186045, 2 FEBRUARY 2011, PERALTA, J.) SUBJECTS: VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION ON NON-FORUM SHOPPING; COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION. (BRIEF TITLE: MACTAN-CEBU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT VS. HEIRS OF MINOZA)  

 

X – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – -x

THE INTERVENORS FILED A COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION WITHOUT THE REQUISITE VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION ON NON-FORUM SHOPPING.  RTC DENIED COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION. INTERVENORS FILED MOTION FOR RECON ATTACHING THERETO THE REQUISITE CERTIFICATION. DID THIS CURED THE DEFECT?

YES. A DEFECT THEREIN DOES NOT NECESSARILY RENDER THE PLEADING FATALLY DEFECTIVE. THE COURT MAY ORDER ITS SUBMISSION OR CORRECTION, OR ACT ON THE PLEADING IF THE ATTENDING CIRCUMSTANCES ARE SUCH THAT STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULE MAY BE DISPENSED WITH IN ORDER THAT THE ENDS OF JUSTICE MAY BE SERVED THEREBY. 

At the outset, on the procedural aspect, contrary to petitioner’s contention, the initial lack of the complaint-in-intervention of the requisite verification and certification on non-forum shopping was cured when the intervenors, in their motion for reconsideration of the order denying the motion to intervene, appended a complaint-in-intervention containing the required verification and certificate of non-forum shopping. 

In the case of Altres v. Empleo,[13] this Court clarified, among other things, that as to verification, non-compliance therewith or a defect therein does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective. The court may order its submission or correction, or act on the pleading if the attending circumstances are such that strict compliance with the Rule may be dispensed with in order that the ends of justice may be served thereby.  Further, a verification is deemed substantially complied with when one who has ample knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations in the complaint or petition signs the verification, and when matters alleged in the petition have been made in good faith or are true and correct.[14]

XXXXXXXXXXXX

Thus, considering that the intervenors in their motion for reconsideration, appended a complaint-in-intervention with the required verification and certificate of non-forum shopping, the requirement of the Rule was substantially complied with.

SUPPOSE THE REQUISITE VERIFICATION WAS NO SUBMITTED, DOES SUBMISSION IN MOTION TO RECON ADEQUATE?

 NO THE RULE ON CERTIFICATION ON NON-FORUM SHOPPING IS DIFFERENT FROM THE RULE ON VERIFICATION.

Moreover, as to the certification against forum shopping, non-compliance therewith or a defect therein, unlike in verification, is generally not curable by its subsequent submission or correction thereof, unless there is a need to relax the Rules on the ground of “substantial compliance” or presence of “special circumstances or compelling reasons.” Also, the certification against forum shopping must be signed by all the plaintiffs or petitioners in a case; otherwise, those who did not sign will be dropped as parties to the case.  Under reasonable or justifiable circumstances, however, as when all the plaintiffs or petitioners share a common interest and invoke a common cause of action or defense, the signature of only one of them in the certification against forum shopping substantially complies with the Rule.[15]

[1]               Penned by Associate Justice Francisco P. Acosta, with Associate Justices Franchito N. Diamante and Florito S. Macalino, concurring; rollo, pp. 56- 65.

[2]               Id. at 67-68.

[3]               Id. at 69-76.

[4]               Id. at 57.

[5]               Id. at 112-115.

[6]               Id. at 125.

[7]               Id. at 130-131.

[8]               Id. at 132-136.

[9]               Id. at 116-129.

[10]             Id. at 143-144.

[11]             Id. at 64-65.

[12]             Id. at 39.

[13]             G.R. No. 180986, December 10, 2008, 573 SCRA 583.

[14]             Id. at 598-597.

[15]             Id. at 597.

[16]             Asia’s Emerging Dragon Corporation v. Department of Transportation and Communications, G.R. Nos. 169914 and 174166, March 24, 2008, 549 SCRA 44, 49.

[17]             Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. v. Presiding Judge, RTC Manila, Br. 39, G.R. No. 89909, September 21, 1990, 189 SCRA 820, 824.

[18]             Alfelor v. Halasan, G.R. No. 165987, March 31, 2006, 486 SCRA 451, 460.

[19]             Id. at 461.  (Citation omitted.)

[20]             Nordic Asia Limited. v. Court of Appeals, 451 Phil. 482, 493 (2003).

[21]             Big Country Ranch Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 102927, October 12, 1993, 227 SCRA 161, 167.

[22]             Id. at 166-167.

[23]             Quinto v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 189698, February 22, 2010, 613 SCRA 385, 402.

[24]             Supra note 19, at 165.