Lawyerly

GR No. 192615

2013-01-30

SPS. EUGENE L. LIM AND CONSTANCIA LIM v. CA-MINDANAO STATION

BRION, J.

In any case, it is settled that the requirements of verification and certification against forum shopping are not jurisdictional.[24] Verification is required to secure an assurance that the allegations in the petition have been made in good faith or are true and correct, and not merely speculative.[25] Non-compliance with the verification requirement does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective,[26] and is substantially complied with when signed by one who has ample knowledge of the truth of the allegations in the complaint or petition, and when matters alleged in the petition have been made in good faith or are true and correct.[27] On the other hand, the certification against forum shopping is required based on the principle that a party-litigant should not be allowed to pursue simultaneous remedies in different fora.[28] While the certification requirement is obligatory, non-compliance or a defect in the certificate could be cured by its subsequent correction or submission under special circumstances or compelling reasons, or on the ground of "substantial compliance.[29]"

GR No. 184977

2009-12-07

COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES v. RICKY E. DELA CRUZ

BRION, J.

That the contractors were not impleaded as necessary parties was not a fatal infirmity, according to the CA, relying on the ruling of the Court in Cabutihan v. Landcenter Construction and Development Corporation.[20] On the other hand, the alleged lack of proof of service was brushed aside on the finding that there is in the records of the case (page 35 of the petition) an affidavit of service executed by Rufino San Antonio indicating compliance with the rule on service. Finally, the CA ruled that the defect in the verification and certification was a mere formal requirement that can be excused in the interest of substantial justice, following the ruling of this Court in Uy v. Landbank of the Philippines.[21]

GR No. 168848

2009-06-30

HEIRS OF LATE JOSE DE LUZURIAGA v. REPUBLIC THRU OFFICE OF SOLICITOR GENERAL

VELASCO JR., J.

Subsequently, the Republic moved for reconsideration[16] of the above denial order arguing that its procedural lapses are not fatal to its case. It cited Uy v. Land Bank of the Philippines,[17] in which the Court held that the merits of the substantive aspects of the case are deemed a special circumstance or compelling reason for the reinstatement of its petition and prayed for the relaxation of the Rules. Moreover, the OSG alleged that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over Cadastral Case No. 97-583 inasmuch as the corresponding amended application for registration dated May 5, 1998 was not published and a copy of which the Republic was not served.

GR No. 170625

2008-10-17

BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. CA

TINGA, J.

In certain exceptional circumstances,[41] however, the Court has allowed the belated filing of the certification. In all these cases, there were special circumstances or compelling reasons that justified the relaxation of the rule requiring verification and certification on non-forum shopping.[42] In said cases, the Court excused non-compliance with the requirement as to the certificate of non-forum shopping.[43]

GR No. 162886

2008-08-11

HEIRS OF DECEASED SPS. VICENTE S. ARCILLA AND JOSEFA ASUNCION ARCILLA v. MA. LOURDES A. TEODORO

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

It must be kept in mind that while the requirement of the certificate of non-forum shopping is mandatory, nonetheless the requirement must not be interpreted too literally and thus defeat the objective of preventing the undesirable practice of forum shopping.[27] In Uy v. Land Bank of the Philippines,[28] the Court ruled, thus:The admission of the petition after the belated filing of the certification, therefore, is not unprecedented. In those cases where the Court excused non-compliance with the requirements, there were special circumstances or compelling reasons making the strict application of the rule clearly unjustified. In the case at bar, the apparent merits of the substantive aspects of the case should be deemed as a "special circumstance" or "compelling reason" for the reinstatement of the petition. x x x[29]

GR NO. 159422

2008-03-28

CHINESE YMCA OF MANILA DOWNTOWN v. REGISTER OF DEEDS

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

(2003). [27] Uy v. Land Bank of the Philippines, 391 Phil. 303, 312 (2000); Shipside Incorporated v. Court of Appeals , supra note 24.

GR NO. 158231

2007-06-19

BABY ARLENE LARANO v. SPS. ALFREDO CALENDACION AND RAFAELA T. CALENDACION

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

As to the contention of petitioner that the CA should not have taken cognizance of the petition for review because it was not verified, as required by the Rules, this Court has held in a number of instances that such a deficiency can be excused or dispensed with in meritorious cases, the defect being neither jurisdictional nor always fatal.[19] The requirement regarding verification of a pleading is formal.[20] Such requirement is simply a condition affecting the form of pleading, the non-compliance with which does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective.[21] Verification is simply intended to secure an assurance that the allegations in the pleading are true and correct and not the product of the imagination or a matter of speculation, and that the pleading is filed in good faith.[22] The court may order the correction of the pleading if verification is lacking or act on the pleading although it is not verified, if the attending circumstances are such that strict compliance with the Rules may be dispensed with in order that the ends of justice may thereby be served.[23]

GR NO. 148852

2006-09-27

MARILYN VALDECANTOS v. PEOPLE

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

The requirement regarding verification of a pleading is formal, not jurisdictional.[16] Such requirement is simply a condition affecting the form of pleading, the non-compliance of which does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective.[17] Verification is simply intended to secure an assurance that the allegations in the pleading are true and correct and not the product of the imagination or a matter of speculation, and that the pleading is filed in good faith.[18] The court may order the correction of the pleading if verification is lacking or act on the pleading although it is not verified, if the attending circumstances are such that strict compliance with the rules may be dispensed with in order that the ends of justice may thereby be served.[19]

GR NO. 156383

2006-07-31

VICENTE B. CHUIDIAN v. SANDIGANBAYAN

GARCIA, J.

To be sure, a reconsideration and eventual reinstatement of what may be considered a final denial action is not unprecedented. In Uy v. Land Bank of the Philippines,[29] the Court also granted therein petitioner Uy's similar second motion for reconsideration and reinstated in the process an otherwise peremptorily denied petition for review.

GR NO. 164929

2006-04-10

ERNELIZA Z. MAMARIL v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

CARPIO MORALES, J.

The purpose of requiring a verification is to secure an assurance that the allegations of the petition have been made in good faith, or are true and correct, not merely speculative.[23] Non-compliance with such requirement does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective, hence, the court may order its correction if verification is lacking, or act on the pleading although it is not verified if the attending circumstances are such that strict compliance with the Rules may be dispensed with in order that the ends of justice may thereby be served.[24]

GR NO. 155343

2005-09-02

BENGUET CORPORATION v. CORDILLERA CARABALLO MISSION

QUISUMBING, J.

This Court has consistently held that the requirement regarding verification of a pleading is formal, not jurisdictional.[9] Such requirement is a condition affecting the form of the pleading; non-compliance with this requirement does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective. Verification is simply intended to secure an assurance that the allegations in the pleading are true and correct and not the product of the imagination or a matter of speculation, and that the pleading is filed in good faith.[10] Further, the purpose of the aforesaid certification is to prohibit and penalize the evils of forum-shopping.[11] Considering that later on Mr. Bolaño's authority to sign the verification and certificate of non-forum shopping was ratified[12] by the board, there is no circumvention of these objectives.

GR NO. 144755

2005-06-08

SPS. ELISEO F. ESTARES AND ROSENDA P. ESTARES v. CA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Concerning the verification, we note that Rosenda stated therein that she caused the preparation of the "foregoing Pre-Trial Brief" but we consider the same as a slight error and honest mistake in the preparation of the petition. In any event, the purpose of requiring a verification is simply to secure an assurance that the allegations of the petition have been made in good faith; or are true and correct, not merely speculative.[25] This requirement is simply a condition affecting the form of pleadings, and noncompliance therewith does not necessarily render it fatally defective.[26] Indeed, verification is only a formal, not a jurisdictional, requirement.[27]

GR NO. 152392

2005-05-26

EXPERTRAVEL v. CA

CALLEJO, SR., J.

Indeed, the certificate of non-forum shopping may be incorporated in the complaint or appended thereto as an integral part of the complaint. The rule is that compliance with the rule after the filing of the complaint, or the dismissal of a complaint based on its non-compliance with the rule, is impermissible. However, in exceptional circumstances, the court may allow subsequent compliance with the rule.[12] If the authority of a party's counsel to execute a certificate of non-forum shopping is disputed by the adverse party, the former is required to show proof of such authority or representation.

GR No. 149634

2004-07-06

LORETA TORRES v. SPECIALIZED PACKAGING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

PANGANIBAN, J.

"A pleading required to be verified which contains a verification based on 'information and belief,' or upon 'knowledge, information and belief,' or lacks a proper verification, shall be treated as an unsigned pleading." (Italics supplied) The purpose of requiring a verification is to secure an assurance that the allegations of the petition have been made in good faith; or are true and correct, not merely speculative.[18] This requirement is simply a condition affecting the form of pleadings, and noncompliance therewith does not necessarily render it fatally defective.[19] Indeed, verification is only a formal, not a jurisdictional, requirement.[20]

	GR No. 192615 2013-01-30	SPS. EUGENE L. LIM AND CONSTANCIA LIM v. CA-MINDANAO STATION BRION, J.
In any case, it is settled that the requirements of verification and certification against forum shopping are not jurisdictional.[24] Verification is required to secure an assurance that the allegations in the petition have been made in good faith or are true and correct, and not merely speculative.[25] Non-compliance with the verification requirement does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective,[26] and is substantially complied with when signed by one who has ample knowledge of the truth of the allegations in the complaint or petition, and when matters alleged in the petition have been made in good faith or are true and correct.[27] On the other hand, the certification against forum shopping is required based on the principle that a party-litigant should not be allowed to pursue simultaneous remedies in different fora.[28] While the certification requirement is obligatory, non-compliance or a defect in the certificate could be cured by its subsequent correction or submission under special circumstances or compelling reasons, or on the ground of "substantial compliance.[29]"
	GR No. 184977 2009-12-07	COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES v. RICKY E. DELA CRUZ BRION, J.
That the contractors were not impleaded as necessary parties was not a fatal infirmity, according to the CA, relying on the ruling of the Court in Cabutihan v. Landcenter Construction and Development Corporation.[20] On the other hand, the alleged lack of proof of service was brushed aside on the finding that there is in the records of the case (page 35 of the petition) an affidavit of service executed by Rufino San Antonio indicating compliance with the rule on service. Finally, the CA ruled that the defect in the verification and certification was a mere formal requirement that can be excused in the interest of substantial justice, following the ruling of this Court in Uy v. Landbank of the Philippines.[21]
	GR No. 168848 2009-06-30	HEIRS OF LATE JOSE DE LUZURIAGA v. REPUBLIC THRU OFFICE OF SOLICITOR GENERAL VELASCO JR., J.
Subsequently, the Republic moved for reconsideration[16] of the above denial order arguing that its procedural lapses are not fatal to its case. It cited Uy v. Land Bank of the Philippines,[17] in which the Court held that the merits of the substantive aspects of the case are deemed a special circumstance or compelling reason for the reinstatement of its petition and prayed for the relaxation of the Rules. Moreover, the OSG alleged that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over Cadastral Case No. 97-583 inasmuch as the corresponding amended application for registration dated May 5, 1998 was not published and a copy of which the Republic was not served.
	GR No. 170625 2008-10-17	BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. CA TINGA, J.
In certain exceptional circumstances,[41] however, the Court has allowed the belated filing of the certification. In all these cases, there were special circumstances or compelling reasons that justified the relaxation of the rule requiring verification and certification on non-forum shopping.[42] In said cases, the Court excused non-compliance with the requirement as to the certificate of non-forum shopping.[43]
	GR No. 162886 2008-08-11	HEIRS OF DECEASED SPS. VICENTE S. ARCILLA AND JOSEFA ASUNCION ARCILLA v. MA. LOURDES A. TEODORO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
It must be kept in mind that while the requirement of the certificate of non-forum shopping is mandatory, nonetheless the requirement must not be interpreted too literally and thus defeat the objective of preventing the undesirable practice of forum shopping.[27] In Uy v. Land Bank of the Philippines,[28] the Court ruled, thus:The admission of the petition after the belated filing of the certification, therefore, is not unprecedented. In those cases where the Court excused non-compliance with the requirements, there were special circumstances or compelling reasons making the strict application of the rule clearly unjustified. In the case at bar, the apparent merits of the substantive aspects of the case should be deemed as a "special circumstance" or "compelling reason" for the reinstatement of the petition. x x x[29]
	GR NO. 159422 2008-03-28	CHINESE YMCA OF MANILA DOWNTOWN v. REGISTER OF DEEDS AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
(2003). [27] Uy v. Land Bank of the Philippines, 391 Phil. 303, 312 (2000); Shipside Incorporated v. Court of Appeals , supra note 24.
	GR NO. 158231 2007-06-19	BABY ARLENE LARANO v. SPS. ALFREDO CALENDACION AND RAFAELA T. CALENDACION AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
As to the contention of petitioner that the CA should not have taken cognizance of the petition for review because it was not verified, as required by the Rules, this Court has held in a number of instances that such a deficiency can be excused or dispensed with in meritorious cases, the defect being neither jurisdictional nor always fatal.[19] The requirement regarding verification of a pleading is formal.[20] Such requirement is simply a condition affecting the form of pleading, the non-compliance with which does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective.[21] Verification is simply intended to secure an assurance that the allegations in the pleading are true and correct and not the product of the imagination or a matter of speculation, and that the pleading is filed in good faith.[22] The court may order the correction of the pleading if verification is lacking or act on the pleading although it is not verified, if the attending circumstances are such that strict compliance with the Rules may be dispensed with in order that the ends of justice may thereby be served.[23]
	GR NO. 148852 2006-09-27	MARILYN VALDECANTOS v. PEOPLE AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The requirement regarding verification of a pleading is formal, not jurisdictional.[16] Such requirement is simply a condition affecting the form of pleading, the non-compliance of which does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective.[17] Verification is simply intended to secure an assurance that the allegations in the pleading are true and correct and not the product of the imagination or a matter of speculation, and that the pleading is filed in good faith.[18] The court may order the correction of the pleading if verification is lacking or act on the pleading although it is not verified, if the attending circumstances are such that strict compliance with the rules may be dispensed with in order that the ends of justice may thereby be served.[19]
	GR NO. 156383 2006-07-31	VICENTE B. CHUIDIAN v. SANDIGANBAYAN GARCIA, J.
To be sure, a reconsideration and eventual reinstatement of what may be considered a final denial action is not unprecedented. In Uy v. Land Bank of the Philippines,[29] the Court also granted therein petitioner Uy's similar second motion for reconsideration and reinstated in the process an otherwise peremptorily denied petition for review.
	GR NO. 164929 2006-04-10	ERNELIZA Z. MAMARIL v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION CARPIO MORALES, J.
The purpose of requiring a verification is to secure an assurance that the allegations of the petition have been made in good faith, or are true and correct, not merely speculative.[23] Non-compliance with such requirement does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective, hence, the court may order its correction if verification is lacking, or act on the pleading although it is not verified if the attending circumstances are such that strict compliance with the Rules may be dispensed with in order that the ends of justice may thereby be served.[24]
	GR NO. 155343 2005-09-02	BENGUET CORPORATION v. CORDILLERA CARABALLO MISSION QUISUMBING, J.
This Court has consistently held that the requirement regarding verification of a pleading is formal, not jurisdictional.[9] Such requirement is a condition affecting the form of the pleading; non-compliance with this requirement does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective. Verification is simply intended to secure an assurance that the allegations in the pleading are true and correct and not the product of the imagination or a matter of speculation, and that the pleading is filed in good faith.[10] Further, the purpose of the aforesaid certification is to prohibit and penalize the evils of forum-shopping.[11] Considering that later on Mr. Bolaño's authority to sign the verification and certificate of non-forum shopping was ratified[12] by the board, there is no circumvention of these objectives.
	GR NO. 144755 2005-06-08	SPS. ELISEO F. ESTARES AND ROSENDA P. ESTARES v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Concerning the verification, we note that Rosenda stated therein that she caused the preparation of the "foregoing Pre-Trial Brief" but we consider the same as a slight error and honest mistake in the preparation of the petition. In any event, the purpose of requiring a verification is simply to secure an assurance that the allegations of the petition have been made in good faith; or are true and correct, not merely speculative.[25] This requirement is simply a condition affecting the form of pleadings, and noncompliance therewith does not necessarily render it fatally defective.[26] Indeed, verification is only a formal, not a jurisdictional, requirement.[27]
	GR NO. 152392 2005-05-26	EXPERTRAVEL v. CA CALLEJO, SR., J.
Indeed, the certificate of non-forum shopping may be incorporated in the complaint or appended thereto as an integral part of the complaint. The rule is that compliance with the rule after the filing of the complaint, or the dismissal of a complaint based on its non-compliance with the rule, is impermissible. However, in exceptional circumstances, the court may allow subsequent compliance with the rule.[12] If the authority of a party's counsel to execute a certificate of non-forum shopping is disputed by the adverse party, the former is required to show proof of such authority or representation.
	GR No. 149634 2004-07-06	LORETA TORRES v. SPECIALIZED PACKAGING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PANGANIBAN, J.
"A pleading required to be verified which contains a verification based on 'information and belief,' or upon 'knowledge, information and belief,' or lacks a proper verification, shall be treated as an unsigned pleading." (Italics supplied) The purpose of requiring a verification is to secure an assurance that the allegations of the petition have been made in good faith; or are true and correct, not merely speculative.[18] This requirement is simply a condition affecting the form of pleadings, and noncompliance therewith does not necessarily render it fatally defective.[19] Indeed, verification is only a formal, not a jurisdictional, requirement.[20]

FELIPE G. UY v. LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES