This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2007-08-02 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, petitioner contends that she submitted the certification against forum shopping on May 3, 1994, barely a week from the time the complaint was filed. In Kavinta v. Castillo, Jr.,[8] this Court held that "[t]he proximity of the filing of the complaint to the date of the effectivity of Administrative Circular No. 04-94 may be pleaded as a justifying circumstance, and the belated filing of the certification required thereunder may be deemed a substantial compliance therewith." | |||||
|
2003-08-14 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| We have ruled previously[41] that substantial compliance with the certificate of non-forum shopping is sufficient. The equitable circumstances pleaded to show substantial compliance include the proximity of the filing of the complaint to the date of the effectivity of the circular requiring the certificate and the belated filing thereof, but the mere submission thereof after the filing of a motion to dismiss does not ipso facto operate as a substantial compliance.[42] As summarized in Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Court of Appeals,[43] "[w]hen a strict and literal application of the rules on non-forum shopping and verification will result in a patent denial of substantial justice, they may be liberally construed. This guideline is especially true when the petitioner has satisfactorily explained the lapse and fulfilled the requirements in its motion for reconsideration." | |||||