Certification Against Forum Shopping - Jurisprudence

LOURDES C. FERNANDEZ vs. NORMA VILLEGAS (GR N0.
200191)
AUGUST 20, 2014
Motion to Dismiss Appeal, holding that the verification and certification
against forum shopping attached to the CA petition was defective since it
was signed only by Lourdes, one of the plaintiffs in the case, in violation
of Section 5
SUPREME COURT:
The Court laid down the following guidelines with respect to noncompliance with
the requirements on or submission of a defective verification and certification
against forum shopping, viz.:
1) A distinction must be made between non-compliance with the

requirement on or submission of defective verification, and noncompliance
with the requirement on or submission of defective certification against
forum shopping.
2) 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.
3) 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.
4) As to 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 Rule on the ground of "substantial
compliance" or presence of "special circumstances or compelling
reasons."
5) 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.
6) Finally, the certification against forum shopping must be executed by
the party-pleader, not by his counsel. If, however, for reasonable or
justifiable reasons, the party-pleader is unable to sign, he must execute a
Special Power of Attorney designating his counsel of record to sign on his
behalf.
Similar to the rules on verification, the rules on forum shopping are

designed to promote and facilitate the orderly administration of
justice; hence, it should not be interpreted with such absolute
literalness as to subvert its own ultimate and legitimate objectives.
The requirement of strict compliance with the provisions on certification
against forum shopping merely underscores its mandatory nature to the
effect that the certification cannot altogether be dispensed with or its
requirements completely disregarded. It does not prohibit substantial
compliance with the rules under justifiable circumstances, as also in this
case
PABLO POLSOTIN, JR., ET. AL. vs DE GUIA ENTERPRISES (GR NO. 172624)
DECEMBER 5, 2011
Petitioners’ appeal before the NLRC was dismissed purely on technical
grounds as it did not contain the required certification of non-forum shopping
and proof of service upon the respondent. Immediately, petitioners rectified
these lapses by filing their motion for reconsideration indicating therein that
there was no intention on their part to commit forum shopping and that the
registry receipt showing proof of service upon respondent was attached to their
Memorandum of Appeal filed with the NLRC.
Note, however, that in both instances, petitioners were not
represented by a lawyer. They had no counsel on record and had been filing
and signing all pleadings only through their representative, petitioner
Rayala. There was no showing that their case was directly handled or at
the very least, that they were assisted by a counsel. Not being lawyers,
petitioners’ lack of thorough understanding of procedural rules as well as
the importance of its strict observance is understandable.
SUPREME COURT:
Strict application of technical rules should be set aside to serve the broader
interest of substantial justice.
Not being lawyers, petitioners’ lack of thorough understanding of procedural
rules as well as the importance of its strict observance is understandable. As
held in a case, a non-lawyer litigant cannot be expected to be well-versed
on the rules of procedure as even the most experienced lawyers get tangled
in the web of procedure.
Aware that petitioners are not represented by counsel, the CA could have been
more prudent by giving petitioners time to engage the services of a lawyer or at
least by reminding them of the importance of retaining one. It is worthy to
mention at this point that the right to counsel, being intertwined with the right
to due process, is guaranteed by the Constitution to any person whether the
proceeding is administrative, civil or criminal. The CA should have extended
some degree of liberality so as to give the party a chance to prove their cause
with a lawyer to represent or to assist them.
JOHN HILARIO y SIBAL VS PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES (GR NO.

161070) August
A litigant who is not a lawyer is not expected to know the rules of procedure.
In fact, even the most experienced lawyers get tangled in the web of procedure.
We have held in a civil case that to demand as much from ordinary citizens
whose only compelle intrare is their sense of right would turn the legal system
into an intimidating monstrosity where an individual may be stripped of his
property rights not because he has no right to the property but because he
does not know how to establish such right.
DE GUZMAN VS SANDIGANBAYAN (GR NO.

Certification Against Forum Shopping - Jurisprudence

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Certification Against Forum Shopping - Jurisprudence

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LOURDES C. FERNANDEZ vs. NORMA VILLEGAS (GR N0.

1) A distinction must be made between non-compliance with the

2) As to verification, non-compliance therewith or a defect therein does not

3) Verification is deemed substantially complied with when one who has

4) As to certification against forum shopping, non-compliance

5) The certification against forum shopping must be signed by all the

Similar to the rules on verification, the rules on forum shopping are

JOHN HILARIO y SIBAL VS PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES (GR NO.

DE GUZMAN VS SANDIGANBAYAN (GR NO.

You might also like