Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Verification and Certification of Non Forum Shopping
Verification and Certification of Non Forum Shopping
SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
DECISION
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
SO ORDERED.
SO ORDERED.
SO ORDERED.
Landheights seasonably filed a motion for reconsideration[11] on December
26, 2002 and subsequently submitted a Secretarys
[12]
Certificate dated January 13, 2003 executed by its Corporate Secretary,
Ms. Polly S. Tiu, stating that the Board of Directors affirms the authority of
Mr. Dickson Tan to file the Petition for Review.
On March 19, 2003, the Court of Appeals issued a Resolution [13] granting
Landheights a new period of ten (10) days within which to correct and
rectify the deficiencies in the petition. On April 1, 2003, Mediserv filed a
motion for reconsideration[14] praying that the March 19, 2003 Resolution be
set aside and the December 12, 2002 Resolution, which dismissed the
petition, be reinstated. On even date, Landheights filed its Manifestation of
Compliance.[15]
On September 16, 2003, the appellate court issued the first assailed
resolution reinstating the petition for review, the pertinent portion of which
reads as follows:
With the subsequent compliance of the petitioner with the requirement of
the rules and in the interest of substantial justice, We now consider the
petition reinstated.
SO ORDERED.
SO ORDERED.
Its motion for reconsideration having been denied by the appellate court,
petitioner is now before us via the present recourse. Petitioner faults the
appellate court as follows:
THE RESPONDENT COURT GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION
AND ACTED WITHOUT AND/ OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION
IN REINSTATING THE PETITION DESPITE THE CLEAR
MANDATE OF THE RULES AS WELL AS THE JURISPRUDENCE
AS LAID DOWN BY THIS HONORABLE COURT CALLING FOR
THE DISMISSAL OF THE SAID PETITION.[18]
Petitioner argues that from the beginning, the Court of Appeals found the
petition filed before it to be defective for failure to comply with the rules. It
points out that there is no showing that the respondent corporation, through
its board of directors, had authorized Mr. Dickson Tan to file the petition for
review in its behalf and to sign the verification and certification against
forum-shopping. However, instead of upholding the dismissal of the
petition, the Court of Appeals allowed private respondent to rectify its
deficiency, which is contrary to jurisprudence.
Finally, we note that the instant petition was filed under Rule 65 of
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, which requires the existence
of grave abuse of discretion. Grave abuse of discretion exists where an act of
a court or tribunal is performed with a capricious or whimsical exercise of
judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be
so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a
virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in
contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and
despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility.[37] No such grave
abuse of discretion exists in this case to warrant issuance of the
extraordinary writ of certiorari.
SO ORDERED.
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
Chairperson
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, I certify that
the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts
Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1]
In CA-G.R. SP No. 73352. Rollo, p. 37. Penned by Associate Justice Eliezer R. De Los Santos, with
Justices Regalado E. Maambong and Noel G. Tijam concurring.
[2]
Id. at 39.
[3]
AN ACT TO REGULATE THE SALE OF PROPERTY UNDER SPECIAL POWERS INSERTED IN
OR ANNEXED TO REAL-ESTATE MORTGAGES.
[4]
CA rollo, pp. 16-27. Penned by Judge Maria Xytuz Rempola Turiano.
[5]
Id. at 28-63.
[6]
Id. at 71-77. Penned by Judge Cesar M. Solis.
[7]
Id. at 78-85.
[8]
Id. at 92-93.
[9]
Id. at 2-14.
[10]
Id. at 96. Penned by Associate Justice Oswaldo D. Agcaoili, with Associate Justices Eliezer R. De Los
Santos and Regalado E. Maambong concurring.
[11]
Id. at 99-106.
[12]
Id. at 117.
[13]
Id. at 134-137.
[14]
Id. at 197-201.
[15]
Id. at 138-140.
[16]
Id. at 204-210.
[17]
Id. at 211-213.
[18]
Rollo, p. 14.
[19]
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, Rule 65, Section 1.
[20]
Id., Rule 7, Section 4.
[21]
Pajuyo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 146364, June 3, 2004, 430 SCRA 492, 509.
[22]
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, Rule 7, Section 5.
[23]
Pascual and Santos, Inc. v. The Members of the Tramo Wakas Neighborhood Association, Inc., G.R.
No. 144880, November 17, 2004, 442 SCRA 438, 446.
[24]
Id. at 446-447.
[25]
384 Phil. 842, 845 (2000).
[26]
Additional Requisites for Petitions Filed with The Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals to Prevent
Forum Shopping or Multiple Filing of Petitions and Complaints.
[27]
Digital Microwave Corp. v. Court of Appeals, supra at 847.
[28]
G.R. No. 143377, February 20, 2001, 352 SCRA 334.
[29]
Id. at 345-347.
[30]
See e.g., China Banking Corporation v. Mondragon International Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 164798,
November 17, 2005, 475 SCRA 332; Vicar International Construction, Inc. v. FEB Leasing and
Finance Corporation, G.R. No. 157195, April 22, 2005, 456 SCRA 588; Wack Wack Golf & Country
Club v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 149793, April 15, 2005, 456 SCRA
280; General Milling Corp. v. NLRC, 442 Phil. 425 (2002).
[31]
G.R. No. 160455, May 9, 2005, 458 SCRA 325, 336-337.
[32]
Shipside Incorporated v. Court of Appeals, supra at 346.
[33]
332 Phil. 733 (1996).
[34]
391 Phil. 303 (2000).
[35]
423 Phil. 509, 513 (2001).
[36]
Edillo v. Dulpina, G.R. No. 188360, January 21, 2010, p. 9.
[37]
Intestate Estate of Carmen de Luna v. IAC, G.R. No. 72424, February 13, 1989, 170 SCRA 246, 254.