SUPREME COURT

SECOND DIVISION

SPS. APOLINARIO MELO and LILIA T.

MELO, and JULIA BARRETO,
Petitioners,

-versus- G.R. No. 123686

November 16, 1999

THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and

ARSENIA CORONEL,
Respondents.
x---------------------------------------------------x

DECISION

MENDOZA, J.:

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari of the Resolution[1] of the

Court of Appeals, dated January 2, 1996, affirming the denial by the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 57, Angeles City, of the motion to
dismiss filed by petitioners spouses Apolinario and Lilia Melo and
Julia Barreto. chanroblespublishingcompany
The facts are not disputed:

Private respondent Arsenia Coronel mortgaged to the Rural

Bank of Mabalacat, Inc. a parcel of land in Angeles City, covered
by T.C.T. No. 43872, to secure a loan of P60,000.00. Because of
her failure to pay the loan, the bank caused the extra-judicial
foreclosure of the mortgage pursuant to Act. No. 3135, as
amended by Act No. 4118, as a result of which the land was sold
to petitioners as the highest bidders. Petitioners then filed a
Petition for the Ex-Parte Issuance of a Writ of Possession with
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 60, Angeles City.[2]

To counter the petition, private respondent filed, on June 8,

1995, a complaint for injunction against petitioners in the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 57, Angeles City. In turn,
petitioners moved to dismiss private respondent’s action on the
following grounds: (1) litis pendentia; (2) forum shopping; and
(3) failure of private respondent to attach a certification of non-
forum shopping to her complaint.[3]

On July 3, 1995, private respondent amended her complaint by

including the certification of non-forum shopping which stated:[4]
chanroblespublishingcompany

AMENDED VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION

I, ARSENIA CORONEL, being duly sworn in accordance with

law do hereby declare and depose:

1. That I am the plaintiff in Civil Case No. 8022 filed

before Branch 57 of the Regional Trial Court of Angeles
City;chanroblespublishingcompany

2. That I caused the foregoing complaint to be prepared

and have read and understood the allegations thereof;

3. That said allegations are true and correct of my own

personal knowledge; chanroblespublishingcompany
 4. That I have not commenced any other
complaint/petition involving the same issues similar to
the instant complaint;

5. That to the best of my knowledge or belief, there is no

other complaint/petition filed involving the same
issues at bar; chanroblespublishingcompany

6. That there is, however, a Petition for Issuance of Writ

of Possession filed against me by the defendants herein
docketed as Cad. Case No. A-124-694 before Branch 60
of the Regional Trial Court, Angeles City; and chanroblespublishingcompany

7. That I execute this affidavit to attest to the truth of the

foregoing.

FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NONE.

(SGD.
ARSENIA CORONEL)

On August 7, 1995, the trial court denied petitioners’ motion to

dismiss explaining —

A reading of the complaint shows that the plaintiff, in order to

exercise her right of redemption, seeks to prevent the
defendants and the Register of Deeds of Angeles City from
doing something. Paragraph 14 of the complaint reads as
follows:chanroblespublishingcompany

“14. That defendants are about to consolidate the

ownership of the plaintiff’s property (T.C.T. No. 43872 of
the Register of Deeds of Angeles City) in their names and
register the said consolidation of ownership with the
Register of Deeds of Angeles City, upon the expiry date of
the redemption period (June 9, 1995); the desire and
willingness of the plaintiff to exercise her right of
redemption notwithstanding.” chanroblespublishingcompany
 It only avers that she has a right to redeem the property and
that she is entitled to the reliefs prayed for, such as the issuance
of a permanent injunction. Furthermore, the complaint states a
sufficient cause of action which is set out in its paragraph 4 to 6,
inclusive, that is, the right to redeem the property and to
prevent the defendant-spouses Apolinario Melo and Lilia T.
Melo and defendant Julio Barreto to consolidate their
ownership over the property. chanroblespublishingcompany

x x x

On Forum Shopping:

In the case at bar, there is no forum shopping. There is forum

shopping whenever, as a result of an adverse opinion in one
forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion (other than by appeal
or certiorari) in another, and the principle applies not only with
respect to suits filed in the courts while an administrative
proceeding is pending, in order to defeat administrative
processes and in anticipation of an unfavorable administrative
ruling and a favorable court ruling. chanroblespublishingcompany

The petition for the issuance of a writ of possession and the

present case, as heretofore stated, are oceans apart, so to speak.
Thus, even if a writ of possession is issued, this will not prevent
the plaintiff from exercising her right to redeem the property, if
warranted. And it may be added that an indemnity bond is
required to be posted in order that possession may then be
obtained under a writ which may be applied for ex-parte,
pursuant to Section 7 of Act 3135 as amended by Act 116.

Plaintiff, in compliance with Circular No. 28-91 and Section 17

of the Interim Rules and Guidelines, submitted an Amended
Verification/Certification. chanroblespublishingcompany

On certiorari brought by petitioners, the Court of Appeals upheld the

trial court’s order. It ruled:

What happened in this case was totally different since the ex-
parte petition for the issuance of a writ of possession was filed
 by the petitioners against private respondent. On the other
hand, the complaint with preliminary injunction was filed by
the private respondent against herein petitioners. It is not a
case, therefore, of the private respondent instituting two (2)
remedies in two (2) different fora. Her case entailed only one (1)
forum, to be precise, with the RTC, Branch 57. chanroblespublishingcompany

Hence, this petition for review on certiorari, raising the

following issues: (1) whether private respondent is guilty of
forum shopping by filing her complaint with preliminary
injunction before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 57, Angeles
City when there was a Petition for Ex-Parte Issuance of Writ of
Possession pending before Branch 60 of the same court; and (2)
whether there was substantial compliance by private
respondent with the rule requiring the submission of a
certification of non-forum shopping together with initiatory
pleadings. chanroblespublishingcompany

We shall deal with these issues seriatim.

To begin with, the essence of forum-shopping is the filing of

multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of
action, either simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of
obtaining a favorable judgment.[5] It exists where the elements
of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one
case will amount to res judicata in another.[6] On the other
hand, for litis pendentia to be a ground for the dismissal of an
action, the following requisites must concur: (a) identity of
parties, or at least such parties who represent the same interests
in both actions; (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed
for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) the
identity with respect to the two preceding particulars in the two
cases is such that any judgment that may be rendered in the
pending case, regardless of which party is successful, would
amount to res judicata in the other case.[7]chanroblespublishingcompany

But, in the instant case, the petition for the Ex-Parte Issuance of a
Writ of Possession which petitioners filed involved a different cause
of action from the complaint for injunction filed by private
respondent. Petitioners sought possession of the subject property,
whereas private respondent sought to enjoin them from consolidating
title over the same. Petitioners’ action is founded on Act No. 3135, §7,
which gives the purchaser at a public auction the right to have
possession of the property sold to him during the redemption period
even if eventually they do not succeed in consolidating their title to it.
On the other hand, private respondents’ action is based on R.A. No.
337, §78, which gives a mortgagor the right to redeem the property
sold at foreclosure sale within one year thereof. Thus, private
respondent could very well oppose petitioners’ action to obtain
possession of the property while trying to prevent them from
consolidating title in a separate case. The decision in one is not
conclusive of the other. chanroblespublishingcompany

Nonetheless, petitioners contend that private respondent failed to

comply with the requirements of Administrative Circular No. 09-94
on non-forum shopping and, therefore, her complaint should have
been dismissed by the trial court. We find this contention to be well
taken. chanroblespublishingcompany

Administrative Circular No. 09-94 states in pertinent parts:

The plaintiff, petitioner, applicant or principal party seeking

relief in the complaint, petition, application or other initiatory
pleadings shall certify under oath in such original pleadings, or
in a sworn certification annexed thereto and simultaneously
filed therewith, to the truth of the following facts and
undertakings: (a) he has not heretofore commenced any other
action or proceeding involving the same issues in the Supreme
Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency; (b)
to the best of his knowledge, no such action or proceeding is
pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any
other tribunal or agency; (c) if there is any such action or
proceeding which is either pending or may have been
terminated, he must state the status thereof; and, (d) if he
should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has
been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of
Appeals or any other tribunal or agency, he undertakes to report
that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court or agency
wherein the original pleading and sworn certification
contemplated herein have been filed. chanroblespublishingcompany
 x x x

Any violation of this Circular shall be cause for the dismissal of

the complaint, petition, application or other initiatory pleading,
upon motion and after hearing. However, any clearly willful and
deliberate forum shopping by any party and his counsel through
the filing of multiple complaints or other initiatory pleadings to
obtain favorable action shall be a ground for summary dismissal
thereof and shall constitute direct contempt of court.
Furthermore, the submission of a false certification or non-
compliance with the undertakings therein, as provided in
Paragraph 1 hereof, shall constitute indirect contempt of court,
without prejudice to disciplinary proceedings against the
counsel and the filing of a criminal action against the guilty
party.

The requirement to file a certificate of non-forum shopping is

mandatory.[8] Failure to comply with this requirement cannot be
excused by the fact that plaintiff is not guilty of forum shopping. The
Court of Appeals, therefore, erred in concluding that Administrative
Circular No. 04-94 did not apply to private respondent’s case merely
because her complaint was not based on petitioner’s cause of action.
The Circular applies to any complaint, petition, application, or other
initiatory pleading, regardless of whether the party filing it has
actually committed forum shopping. Every party filing a complaint or
any other initiatory pleading is required to swear under oath that he
has not and will not commit forum shopping. Otherwise, we would
have an absurd situation where the parties themselves would be the
judge of whether their actions constitute a violation of said Circular,
and compliance therewith would depend on their belief that they
might or might not have violated the requirement. Such
interpretation of the requirement would defeat the very purpose of
Circular 04-94.

Indeed, compliance with the certification against forum shopping is

separate from, and independent of, the avoidance of forum shopping
itself. Thus, there is a difference in the treatment — in terms of
imposable sanctions — between failure to comply with the
certification requirement and violation of the prohibition against
forum shopping. The former is merely a cause for the dismissal,
without prejudice, of the complaint or initiatory pleading, while the
latter is a ground for summary dismissal thereof and constitutes
direct contempt. chanroblespublishingcompany

Nor can subsequent compliance with the requirement excuse a party’s

failure to comply in the first instance. As Justice Regalado explains in
his works on the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure:

1. This section, with modifications, is taken from

Administrative Circular No. 04-94 issued by the Supreme
Court on February 8, 1994 for this purpose explained
therein: chanroblespublishingcompany

“Revised Circular No. 28-91, dated February 8, 1994

applies to and governs the filing of petitions in the
Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals and is intended
to prevent the multiple filing of petitions or complaints
involving the same issues in other tribunals or agencies as
a form of forum shopping.

“Complementary thereto and for the same purpose, the

following requirements, in addition to those in pertinent
provisions of the Rules of Court and existing circulars,
shall be strictly complied with in the filing of complaints,
petitions, applications or other initiatory pleadings in all
courts and agencies other than the Supreme Court and the
Court of Appeals and shall be subject to the sanctions
provided hereunder.” chanroblespublishingcompany

The provisions of Revised Circular No. 28-91 have been

adopted and incorporated in Rules 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 64 and
65.

2. Aside from some amendments to the original sanctions

imposed in Administrative Circular 04-94, this section
reiterates as a regular requirement under the Rules that the
certification against forum shopping may be incorporated in
the complaint or contained in a sworn certification annexed
thereto and simultaneously filed therewith. This enunciates
 the policy of the Supreme Court expressed as early as
Circular No. 1-88 that subsequent compliance with the
requirements for the filing of petitions or motions is not a
ground for reconsideration of the dismissal of said pleadings,
except for compelling reasons. In light hereof, the view that
belated filing of the certification may be deemed a
substantial compliance should no longer be sustained.

With respect to the contents of the certification which the pleader

may prepare, the rule of substantial compliance may be availed of.
While this section requires that it be strictly complied with, it merely
underscores its mandatory nature in that it cannot be altogether
dispensed with or its requirements completely disregarded but it does
not thereby prevent substantial compliance on this aspect of its
provisions under justifiable circumstances (see Gabionza vs. Court of
Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 112547, July 18, 1994). This certification on
non-forum shopping was designed to promote and facilitate the
orderly administration of justice and, therefore, should not be
interpreted with absolute literalness (Loyola vs. Court of Appeals, et
al., G.R. No. 117186, June 29, 1995). chanroblespublishingcompany

More importantly, this section specifically states that the “(f)ailure to

comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be curable by mere
amendment of the complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be
cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless otherwise
provided, upon motion and after hearing.” This will obviate the
former practice of some trial courts in allowing amendment of the
incomplete pleading for the incorporation therein of the certificate
against forum shopping. That was erroneous since this undertaking
against multiple filing of cases is not part of the operative facts
required to be alleged in an initiatory pleading, such as allegations on
the cause of action, but is a special requirement for admission of the
initiatory pleading for filing in court, hence the absence thereof is not
curable by mere amendment. chanroblespublishingcompany

Instead, the case shall be dismissed on motion but, just like the
practice under Revised Circular No. 28-91 in the appellate courts,
such dismissal shall be without prejudice. This more liberal rule is
distinguishable from the effects of dismissal of the case for non-
compliance with the Rules under the provisions of Sec. 3, Rule 17
which presupposes the pendency of the case, whereas what is
contemplated in this section is the initiation of the case. The case may
consequently be refiled within the balance of the reglementary period
but subject to the provisions on prescription of actions. chanroblespublishingcompany

In those cases in which we excused non-compliance with the

requirements of Administrative Circular No. 04-94, there were
special circumstances or compelling reasons which made the strict
application of said Circular clearly unjustified.[9] In contrast private
respondent gave no reason at all for her failure to submit the
certificate in question. Indeed, she cannot even feign ignorance of the
Circular as her complaint was filed more than one year after the
effectivity thereof.

We are not unmindful of the adverse consequence to private

respondent of a dismissal of her complaint, nor of the time, effort,
and money spent litigating up to this Court solely on a so-called
technical ground. Nonetheless, we hold that compliance with the
certification requirement on non-forum shopping should not be made
subject to a party’s afterthought, lest the policy of the law be
undermined. chanroblespublishingcompany

WHEREFORE, the resolution of the Court of Appeals is

REVERSED, the orders of the Regional Trial Court of Angeles City,
Branch 57, in Civil Case No. 8022 are SET ASIDE, and the
complaint filed against petitioners is DISMISSED without
prejudice. chanroblespublishingcompany

SO ORDERED.

Bellosillo, Quisumbing, Buena and De Leon, Jr., JJ.,

concur. chanroblespublishingcompany

chanroblespublishingcompany

[1] Per Justice Bernardo LL. Salas and concurred in by Justices Pedro A. Ramirez
and Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez. chanroblespublishingcompany

[2] Petition, Rollo, pp. 13-14. chanroblespublishingcompany

[3] Id., pp. 14-15. chanroblespublishingcompany

[4] Comment, Annex A, Rollo, pp. 25-26. chanroblespublishingcompany

[5] Executive Secretary vs. Gordon, G.R. No. 134171, November 18, 1998.
[6] Solid Homes, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 271 SCRA 157 (1997).
[7] Valencia vs. Court of Appeals, 256 SCRA 478 (1996). chanroblespublishingcompany

[8] Loyola vs. Court of Appeals, 245 SCRA 477 (1995). chanroblespublishingcompany

[9] See Kavinta vs. Castillo, Jr., 249 SCRA 605 (1995); Loyola vs. Court of
Appeals, 245 SCRA 477 (1995); and MSF Tire and Rubber, Inc., vs. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 128632, August 5, 1999.
chanroblespublishingcompany