MARY LOUISE R. ANDERSON, Petitioner, v. ENRIQUE HO, Respondent.

DECISION

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

As her petition for review was dismissed by the Court of Appeals (CA) on a technical
ground, petitioner now invokes the liberal application of the rules of procedure.

Assailed in this Petition for Review on Certiorari1 is the July 14, 2005 Resolution2 of the
CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 89793 which dismissed the petition for review of petitioner Mary
Louise R. Anderson (Anderson) because the certification against forum shopping
attached thereto was signed by counsel on her behalf without the proper authority.
Likewise assailed is the CAs May 4, 2006 Resolution3 denying the motion for
reconsideration thereof.

Factual Antecedents

On June 5, 2003, Anderson filed a Complaint4 for Ejectment against respondent Enrique

Ho (Ho) before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Quezon City.5 She alleged that
through her mere tolerance, Ho is in possession of her parcel of land at Roosevelt
Avenue, Quezon City covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. N-1933686 (Roosevelt
property). As she was already in need of the said property, Anderson served upon Ho a
Demand Letter to Vacate but despite receipt thereof, Ho refused. Because of this,
Anderson prayed that the MeTC order Ho to vacate the Roosevelt property and pay her
damages and attorneys fees.

In his Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim,7 Ho denied that his occupation of the
Roosevelt property is through Andersons mere tolerance. He claimed that since
Anderson is an American citizen, he managed her affairs in the Philippines and
administered her properties in Quezon City and Cebu. When Anderson sought his
assistance in ejecting her relatives from the Roosevelt property and in demolishing the
St. Anthony de Padua Church built thereon, Ho (1) secured the services of a lawyer to
file an ejectment case against the occupants of the property; (2) dutifully appeared in
court on Andersons behalf who was then in the United States of America (U.S.A.); and
(3) was able to secure a judgment from the court in favor of Anderson. For all these,
Anderson did not pay Ho a single centavo and instead executed a written document
dated January 14, 19998 which states that as partial payment for Hos services,
Anderson is authorizing him "to make use of the Roosevelt property as his residence
free of charge provided he vacates [it] if there is a buyer for the lot" and "that the
balance of Hos compensation shall consist of 10% of the proceeds of the sale of any or
all of her properties located in Roosevelt Avenue, M.H. del Pilar Street and Ana Maria
Street, all in Quezon City; Cebu City; and Cebu province". In view of this, Ho averred
that he possesses the property not through mere tolerance but as part of his
compensation for services rendered to Anderson. Hence, he is entitled to the continued
possession thereof until such time that the property is sold and he is paid the 10% of
the proceeds of its sale.

Ruling of the Metropolitan Trial Court

On June 25, 2004, the MeTC rendered a Decision9 dismissing the case for lack of cause
of action. It gave much weight to the written document executed by Anderson wherein
she gave her consent for Ho to occupy the Roosevelt property provided that the latter
shall vacate the same if there is already a buyer for the lot. There being no allegation
that the said property already has a buyer, she could not eject Ho therefrom.

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in its Decision10 of January 21, 2005 ruled as
follows: cralawlibrary

The evidence of the parties thus stands upon an equipoise. With the equiponderance of
evidence, the Court is inclined to consider the dismissal of the complaint as without
prejudice depending on the outcome of the determination in the proper forum whether
or not the written document dated January 14, 1999 x x x was falsified.

WHEREFORE, the Court modifies the Decision dated June 25, 2004 of the Metropolitan
Trial Court of Quezon City in Civil Case No. 30840 by dismissing the complaint without
prejudice.

SO ORDERED.11 ?r?l1

Anderson moved for reconsideration,12 but the same was denied by the RTC in an
Order13 dated April 1, 2005, a copy of which was received by her counsel on May 5,
2005.14?r?l1

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

Intending to file with the CA a Petition for Review under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court,
Andersons counsel, Atty. Rommel V. Oliva (Atty. Oliva), filed a Motion for Extension of
Time of 15 days from May 20, 2005 or until June 4, 2005 within which to file a
petition15 allegedly due to the revisions required in the initial draft and on account of
heavy pressure of work. This was granted by the CA in a Minute Resolution16 dated May
31, 2005. Subsequently, said counsel sought another extension of 15 days or until June
19, 2005,17 this time claiming that the petition had already been finalized and sent to
Anderson in Hawaii, U.S.A. for her to read as well as sign the certification and
verification portion thereof. However, as of the last day of the extended period on June
4, 2005, the petition has not yet been sent back, hence, the additional extension being
sought. In the interest of justice, the CA once again granted the said motion for
extension.18 On June 20, 2005,19 Atty. Oliva was finally able to file the Petition for
Review20 but the certification against forum shopping attached thereto was signed by
him on Andersons behalf without any accompanying authority to do so. Hence, the CA
issued a Resolution21 on July 14, 2005, viz:
cralawlibrary

The Court resolves to DISMISS herein Petition for Review as the certification against
forum shopping was executed not by the petitioner herself but by her counsel without
attaching therewith any special authority to sign on her behalf.

SO ORDERED.22 ?r?l1
Anderson filed a Motion for Reconsideration.23 During its pendency, she also filed a
Manifestation24 to which was attached an Affidavit25 and a Special Power of Attorney
(SPA)26 authorizing her counsel to cause the preparation and filing of the Petition for
Review and to sign and execute the verification and certification against forum shopping
on her behalf. She explained in the Affidavit that at the time the petition was filed, her
health condition hindered her from going to the proper authority to execute the
necessary SPA so she just verbally instructed her lawyer to draft the petition and cause
the filing of the same. Nevertheless, upon learning of the dismissal of her case, she
returned to the Philippines even against her doctors advice and executed an SPA in
favor of her counsel. She thus prayed that the subsequently submitted documents be
considered in resolving her pending Motion for Reconsideration.

The CA, however, remained unswayed and denied the Motion for Reconsideration in a
Resolution27 dated May 4, 2006.

Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari.

The Parties Arguments

Anderson prays for the relaxation of the rules on certification against forum shopping
and cites a number of jurisprudence wherein the Court considered the subsequent
submission or correction of a certificate of non-forum shopping as substantial
compliance. One in particular is Donato v. Court of Appeals28 which she claims to be on
all fours with the present case. Moreover, Anderson stresses that the merits of the case
should at all times prevail over the rigid application of technical rules. She then
proceeds to discuss her arguments relating to the substantial merits of her petition.

On the other hand, Ho points out that despite the extensions granted by the CA within
which to file the Petition for Review, Anderson still failed to sign the certification against
forum shopping. This, he avers, demonstrates Andersons brazen disregard of technical
rules. Anent the argument of substantial compliance, Ho cites Mendigorin v.
Cabantog29 where the Court reiterated its earlier pronouncement that substantial
compliance will not suffice in a matter involving strict observance of the rule regarding
a certificate of non-forum shopping.30 At any rate, Ho insists that Anderson has no
sufficient cause of action for ejectment and damages against him.

Our Ruling

The petition has no merit.

No justifiable reason exists in this case

as to relax the rule on certification

against forum shopping.

The need to abide by the Rules of Court and the procedural requirements it imposes
has been constantly underscored by this Court. One of these procedural requirements is
the certificate of non-forum shopping which, time and again, has been declared as
basic, necessary and mandatory for procedural orderliness.31 ?r?l1

In Vda. De Formoso v. Philippine National Bank,32 the Court reiterated the guidelines

respecting non-compliance with or submission of a defective certificate of non-forum
shopping, the relevant portions of which are as follows: cralawlibrary

4) As to certification against forum shopping, non-compliance therewith or a defect

therein, x x x, 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.

xxx

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.33 (Emphasis supplied)

The requirement that it is the petitioner, not her counsel, who should sign the
certificate of non-forum shopping is due to the fact that a "certification is a peculiar
personal representation on the part of the principal 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."34 "Obviously, it is the petitioner, and not
always the counsel whose professional services have been retained for a particular
case, who is in the best position to know whether sheactually filed or caused the filing
of a petition in that case."35 Per the above guidelines, however, if a petitioner is unable
to sign a certification for reasonable or justifiable reasons, she must execute an SPA
designating her counsel of record to sign on her behalf. "A certification which had been
signed by counsel without the proper authorization is defective and constitutes a valid
cause for the dismissal of the petition."36
?r?l1

In this light, the Court finds that the CA correctly dismissed Andersons Petition for
Review on the ground that the certificate of non-forum shopping attached thereto was
signed by Atty. Oliva on her behalf sans any authority to do so. While the Court notes
that Anderson tried to correct this error by later submitting an SPA and by explaining
her failure to execute one prior to the filing of the petition, this does not automatically
denote substantial compliance. It must be remembered that a defective certification is
generally not curable by its subsequent correction. And while it is true that in some
cases the Court considered such a belated submission as substantial compliance, it "did
so only on sufficient and justifiable grounds that compelled a liberal approach while
avoiding the effective negation of the intent of the rule on non-forum shopping."37 ?r?l1

Unlike in Donato38 and the other cases cited by Anderson, no sufficient and justifiable
grounds exist in this case as to relax the rules on certification against forum shopping.

In Donato, the CA dismissed therein petitioners Petition for Review on the ground,
among others, that the certification against forum shopping was signed by his counsel.
In filing a motion for reconsideration, petitioner submitted a certification duly signed by
himself. However, the CA ruled that his subsequent compliance did not cure the defect
of the instant petition and denied his Motion for Reconsideration. When the case
reached this Court, it was held, viz:
cralawlibrary

The petition for review filed before the CA contains a certification against forum
shopping but said certification was signed by petitioners counsel. In submitting the
certification of non-forum shopping duly signed by himself in his motion for
reconsideration, petitioner has aptly drawn the Courts attention to the physical
impossibility of filing the petition for review within the 15-day reglementary period to
appeal considering that he is a resident of 1125 South Jefferson Street, Roanoke,
Virginia, U.S.A. where he needs to personally accomplish and sign the verification.

We fully agree with petitioner that it was physically impossible for the petition to have
been prepared and sent to the petitioner in the United States, for him to travel from
Virginia, U.S.A. to the nearest Philippine Consulate in Washington, D.C., U.S.A. in order
to sign the certification before the Philippine Consul, and for him to send back the
petition to the Philippines within the 15-day reglementary period. Thus, we find that
petitioner has adequately explained his failure to personally sign the certification which
justifies relaxation of the rule.

We have stressed that the rules on forum shopping, which were precisely 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
which is simply to prohibit and penalize the evils of forum-shopping. The subsequent
filing of the certification duly signed by the petitioner himself should thus be deemed
substantial compliance, pro hac vice.39 ?r?l1

While at first blush Donato appears to be similar with the case at bench, a deeper and
meticulous comparison of the two cases reveals essential differences. In Donato, the
Court held that it was impossible for the petition to have been prepared and sent to the
therein petitioner in the USA; for him to travel from Virginia to the nearest Philippine
Consulate in Washington D.C.; and for the petition to be sent back to the Philippines
within the 15-day reglementary period. The same could not, however, be said in this
case. It must be remembered that on top of the 15-day reglementary period to file the
petition, Atty. Oliva sought and was granted a total extension of 30 days to file the
same. Hence, Anderson had a total of 45 days to comply with the requirements of a
Petition for Review as against the 15 days afforded to the petitioner in Donato. To this
Court, the said period is more than enough time for Anderson to execute an SPA before
the nearest Philippine Consulate, which again unlike in Donato, was located in the same
state where Anderson was (Hawaii), and thereafter to send it to the Philippines. Anent
her allegation that her health condition at that time hindered her from going to the
proper authorities to execute an SPA, the same deserves scant consideration as no
medical certificate was submitted to support this. "Indeed, the age-old but familiar rule
is that he who alleges must prove his allegations."40 ?r?l1

Moreover, simultaneous with the filing of a Motion for Reconsideration, the proper
certificate of non-forum shopping was submitted by the petitioner in Donato. Notably in
this case, the SPA was submitted two months after the filing of Andersons Motion for
Reconsideration. It took that long because instead of executing an SPA before the
proper authorities in Hawaii and sending the same to the Philippines, Anderson still
waited until she came back to the country and only then did she execute one. It thus
puzzles the Court why Anderson opted not to immediately submit the SPA despite her
awareness that the same should have been submitted simultaneously with the Petition
for Review. Hence, it cannot help but conclude that the delay in the submission of the
SPA is nothing but a product of Andersons sheer laxity and indifference in complying
with the rules. It is well to stress that "rules are laid down for the benefit of all and
should not be made dependent upon a suitors sweet time and own bidding."41 They
should be faithfully complied with42 and may not simply be ignored to suit the
convenience of a party.43 Although they are liberally construed in some situations, there
must, however, be a showing of justifiable reasons and at least a reasonable attempt at
compliance therewith,44 which unfortunately are not obtaining in this case.

In view of the foregoing, this Court affirms the CAs dismissal of Andersons Petition for
Review.

As a final note, the Court reiterates that: cralawlibrary

x x x procedural rules are designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases. Courts and
litigants alike are enjoined to abide strictly by the rules. While in certain instances, we
allow a relaxation in the application of the rules, we never intend to forge a weapon for
erring litigants to violate the rules with impunity. The liberal interpretation and
application of rules apply only in proper cases of demonstrable merit and under
justifiable causes and circumstances. While it is true that litigation is not a game of
technicalities, it is equally true that every case must be prosecuted in accordance with
the prescribed procedure to ensure an orderly and speedy administration of justice.
Party litigants and their counsels are well advised to abide by rather than flaunt,
procedural rules for these rules illumine the path of the law and rationalize the pursuit
of justice.45
?r?l1

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED. The assailed Resolution
dated July 14, 2005 and May 4, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 89793
are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.