2F2 Parts of a Pleading 2 Flashcards
Forum Shopping (2006 BAR)
It is an act of a party against whom an adverse judgment has been rendered in one forum, seeking and possibly getting a favorable opinion in another forum, other than by appeal or the special civil action of certiorari. (Sps. Carpio v. Rural Bank of Sto. Tomas Batangas, G.R. No. 153171, 04 May 2006)
Elements of Forum Shopping
Elements of Forum Shopping:
- Identity of parties, or at least such parties representing the same interests in both actions;
- Identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and
- The identity of two preceding particulars, such that any judgment rendered in the other action will, regardless of which party is successful amount to res judicata in the action under consideration. (Buan v. Lopez, G.R. No. 75349, 13 Oct. 1986)
Nature of the Certification against Forum
Shopping
It is a mandatory requirement in filing a complaint and other initiatory pleadings asserting a claim or relief. (Sec. 5, Rule 7, ROC, as amended)
NOTE: This rule also applies to special civil actions since a special civil action is governed by the rules for ordinary civil actions, subject to the specific rules prescribed for special civil action. (Riano, 2019, citing Wacnang v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 178024, 17 Oct. 2008)
Department of Finance-Revenue Integrity
Protection Service (DOF-RIPS) case
p. 76
When the Execution of Certification against Forum Shopping is required
The certification against forum shopping is only required in a complaint or other initiatory pleading, namely: Permissive counterclaim, Crossclaim, Third (fourth, etc.) party complaint, and Complaint-inintervention. (Sec. 5, Rule 7, ROC, as amended; Arquiza v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 160479, 08 June 2005) A petition for the issuance of the writ of execution is not an initiatory pleading; it does not require a certification against forum shopping. (2014 BAR)
Who executes the Certification against Forum Shopping
GR: It is the plaintiff or principal party who executes the certification under oath. (Sec. 5, Rule 7, ROC, as amended) The certification must be executed by the party, not the attorney.
Reason: It is the petitioner and not the counsel who is in the best position to know whether he or she or it actually filed or caused the filing of a petition. (Far Eastern Shipping Company v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 130068, 01 Oct 1998)
With respect to a corporation, the certification against forum shopping may be signed for and, on its behalf, by a specifically authorized lawyer who has personal knowledge of the facts required to be disclosed in such document. (Cosco Philippines Inc. v. Kemper Insurance Co., G.R. No. 179488, 23 Apr. 2012)
XPN: If, for reasonable or justifiable reasons, the party-pleader is unable to sign, he or she must execute a Special Power of Attorney designating his counsel of record to sign on his behalf. (Vda. De Formoso v. Philippine National Bank, G.R. No. 154704, 01 June 2011)
Execution of Certificate against Forum Shopping when there are Two or More Plaintiffs
GR: All of them must execute the certification of non-forum shopping. (Loquias v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 139396, 15 Aug. 2000)
NOTE: Those who did not sign will be dropped as parties to the case. (Vda. De Formoso v. Philippine National Bank, G.R. No. 154704, 01 June 2011)
XPN: Under reasonable or justifiable circumstances, 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. (Heirs of Dinglasan v. Ayala Corp., G.R. No. 204378, 05 Aug. 2019)
Example: When the petitioners are husband and wife, and the subject property in the case belongs to the conjugal property of the said petitioners, the Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping signed by one of the spouses is deemed to constitute substantial compliance with the Rules. (Docena v. Hon. Lapesura, G.R. No. 140153, 28 Mar. 2001)
Substantial Compliance with the filing of Certification against Forum Shopping (2016 BAR)
GR: The rule is that the certificate of non-forum shopping must be signed by all the petitioners or plaintiffs in a case and the signing by only one of them is insufficient.
“The rule of substantial compliance may be availed of with respect to the contents of the certification.”
XPN: Rules on forum shopping were designed to promote and facilitate the orderly administration of justice and should not be interpreted with such absolute literalness as to subvert its own ultimate and legitimate objective. The rule of substantial compliance may be availed of with respect to the contents of the certification. This is because the requirement of strict compliance with the provisions regarding the certification of non-forum shopping merely underscores its mandatory nature in that the certification cannot be altogether dispensed with or its requirements completely disregarded. It does not thereby interdict substantial compliance with its provisions under justifiable circumstances. (Cavile v. Heirs of Clarita Cavile, G.R. No. 148635, 01 Apr. 2003)
Q: CGN and other residents of Baguio filed two complaints to enjoin SMIC from cutting and/or earth-balling trees. The RTC and the CA dismissed their complaints. They, thus, filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 but only 30 of the 202 petitioners signed the Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping. Should the petition be dismissed for having a defective Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping?
A: NO. The Court, as emphasized in Altres v. Empleo, has consistently applied the substantial compliance rule when it comes to a supposedly defective verification and certification against forum shopping attached to a petition. Altres, citing Tan v. Ballena, mentioned that the purpose of a verification was to assure this Court that a petition contains allegations that are true, and that it was filed in good faith. Thus, the signing of the verification by some petitioners already served the purpose contemplated by the verification. However, when it comes to the certification against forum shopping, Altres ruled that the non-signing petitioners shall be dropped from the petition. Nonetheless, there is an exception: when all petitioners share a common interest, the signature of one (1) petitioner in the certification against forum shopping is enough to satisfy the substantial compliance rule. Here, petitioners all share a common interest, which is to declare the cutting or earth-balling of the trees affected by the Expansion Project illegal. Hence, the signature of 30 petitioners to the certification against forum shopping amounts to substantial compliance with the requirement under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. (Cordillera Global Network, et al. v. Paje, et al., G.R. No. 215988, 10 Apr. 2019)
Q: Sharwin purchased a townhouse from Riel. A
notarized Deed of Absolute Sale was executed by
Riel in favor of Sharwin. The same was also
notarized and the purchase price was paid in
full. However, it was later found that all of the
documents that were in Sharwin’s possession
were falsified. A case was then filed by Sharwin
against Riel which was dismissed by the RTC for
lack of merit. On appeal, the CA held that since a
notarized document enjoys the presumption of
regularity, and only clear, strong, and
convincing evidence can rebut such
presumption, the evidence presented by Riel
was not enough to refute the notarized Deed of
Absolute Sale. The Motion for Reconsideration
filed by Riel was also denied by the CA. Thus, a
petition was filed before the SC questioning the
CA’s decision.
a. Is the Certification of Non-Forum Shopping
attached to the instant Petition valid?
b. Is the CA correct in dismissing outright
Riel’s Motion for Reconsideration due to the
fact that the said pleading was left unsigned
by petitioner Riel’s counsel?
c. Is the CA correct in upholding the sale on the
basis of the presumption of regularity of the
supposedly notarized Deed of Absolute
Sale?
YES. According to Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules
of Court, it is the plaintiff or principal party who
should execute the certification of non-forum
shopping under oath. However, if, for
reasonable or justifiable reasons, the partypleader is unable to sign the certification,
another person may be authorized to execute
the certification on his or her behalf through a
Special Power of Attorney. Petitioner Riel
claims that she, a senior citizen, was suffering
from sickness while in London, United Kingdom
at around the time of the filing of the instant
Petition, disabling her from traveling to the
Philippine Embassy to personally execute a
certification of non-forum shopping. She
presented a Medical Certificate to show that she
was in poor medical condition, preventing her
from personally executing the Certification at
the Philippine Embassy.
While it is true that at the time of the filing of
the instant Petition, a Special Power of Attorney
authorizing a representative to execute the
Certification was not attached, petitioner Riel
was able to belatedly submit before the Court a
Special Power of Attorney fully signed by
petitioner Riel and duly authenticated by the
Philippine Embassy in London. The Court has
held that the belated submission of an
authorization for the execution of a certificate
of non- forum shopping constitutes substantial
compliance with Sections 4 and 5, Rule 7 of the
Rules of Court.
b. NO. the CA held that every pleading must be
signed by the party or counsel representing him
and that an unsigned pleading produces no
legal effect.
While the CA is correct in invoking the aforesaid
Rule, the rest of Section 3, Rule 7 elucidates that
the court may, in its discretion, allow such
deficiency to be remedied if it shall appear that
the same was due to mere inadvertence and not
intended for delay. In the instant case, the Court
accepts petitioner Riel’s explanation that the
failure of her counsel to affix his signature in the
Motion for Reconsideration was due to an
honest inadvertence without any intention to
delay the proceedings.
c. NO. In Suntay v. Court of Appeals, the Court held
though the notarization of the deed of sale in
question vests in its favor the presumption of
regularity, it is not the intention nor the
function of the notary public to validate and
make binding an instrument never, in the first
place, intended to have any binding legal effect
upon the parties thereto. The intention of the
parties still and always is the primary
consideration in determining the true nature of
a contract.
Notarization per se is not a guarantee of the
validity of the contents of a document. The
presumption of regularity of notarized documents cannot be made to apply and may be
overthrown by highly questionable
circumstances, as may be pointed out by the
trial court.
Undertakings of a Party under the Certification against Forum Shopping (2007 BAR)
- That the party has not commenced or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending;
- That if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof; and
- That if he or she should therefore learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, he or she shall report that fact within five days therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed. (Sec. 5, Rule 7, 2019 Amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure)
Defect: Non-Compliance with any of the requirements on Certification against Forum Shopping (2000, 2006 BAR)
It is not curable by mere amendment and shall be a cause for the dismissal of action, unless otherwise provided, upon motion and after hearing. (Ibid.)
Submission of a False Certification
It shall constitute indirect contempt of court, without prejudice to the corresponding administrative and criminal actions. (Ibid..)
Non-compliance with any of the Undertakings
It shall constitute indirect contempt of court, without prejudice to the corresponding administrative and criminal actions. (Ibid..
Commission of Forum Shopping
- If the forum shopping is not considered willful and deliberate, the subsequent case shall be dismissed without prejudice, on the ground of either litis pendentia or res judicata.
- If the forum shopping is willful and deliberate, both (or all, if there are more than two) actions shall be dismissed with prejudice. (Chua v. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co., G.R. No. 182311, 19 Aug. 2009)
It shall be a ground for the summary dismissal of the action, and shall constitute direct contempt, as well as cause for administrative sanctions on the party of the counsel. (Sec. 5, Rule 7, ROC, as amended)
