Lawyerly

GR No. 152923

2009-01-19

NORTHEASTERN COLLEGE TEACHERS v. NORTHEASTERN COLLEGE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

In case there are several petitioners, failure of one of the petitioners to sign the certificate against forum shopping constitutes a defect in the petition, which is a ground for dismissing the same.[80] In Tolentino v. Rivera,[81] we held that for the relaxation of said rule, two conditions must be complied with: first, petitioners must show justifiable cause for their failure to personally sign the certification; and second, they must also be able to prove that the outright dismissal of the petition would seriously impair the orderly administration of justice. Thus, to merit the court's consideration, petitioners must show reasonable cause for failure to personally sign the certification[82] and convince the court that the outright dismissal of the petition would defeat the administration of justice.[83]

GR No. 153690

2008-08-26

DAVID LU v. PATERNO LU YM

NACHURA, J.

On December 20, 2001, the CA granted[22] the Lu Ym father and sons' petition and, thus, dismissed the complaint filed by David Lu, et al. for the parties' (except David Lu) failure to sign the certificate of non-forum shopping. In ruling for the dismissal of the initiatory pleading, the court applied Loquias v. Ombudsman.[23] As a consequence of the dismissal of the complaint, the appellate court likewise annulled the resolutions placing the corporation under receivership and appointing the receivers.[24] On May 28, 2002, the CA denied the motion for reconsideration[25] filed by David Lu, et al. Hence, the petition for review on certiorari before this Court filed by David Lu alone in G.R. No. 153690.

GR NOS. 158786 & 158789

2007-10-19

TOYOTA MOTOR PHILS. CORP. WORKERS ASSOCIATION v. NLRC

VELASCO, JR., J.

In this case, the problem is not the absence but the adequacy of the Union's verification, since only 159 out of the 227 petitioners executed the verification. Undeniably, the petition meets the requirement on the verification with respect to the 159 petitioners who executed the verification, attesting that they have sufficient knowledge of the truth and correctness of the allegations of the petition. However, their signatures cannot be considered as verification of the petition by the other 68 named petitioners unless the latter gave written authorization to the 159 petitioners to sign the verification on their behalf. Thus, in Loquias v. Office of the Ombudsman, we ruled that the petition satisfies the formal requirements only with regard to the petitioner who signed the petition but not his co-petitioner who did not sign nor authorize the other petitioner to sign it on his behalf.[32] The proper ruling in this situation is to consider the petition as compliant with the formal requirements with respect to the parties who signed it and, therefore, can be given due course only with regard to them. The other petitioners who did not sign the verification and certificate against forum shopping cannot be recognized as petitioners have no legal standing before the Court. The petition should be dismissed outright with respect to the non-conforming petitioners.

GR NO. 159876

2007-06-26

DINO A. CRUCILLO v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN

GARCIA, J.

The Court does not ordinarily interfere with the Ombudsman's finding and call on the existence of a probable cause.[28] Practical consideration as well as respect for the Constitution and R.A. No. 6770[29] which have endowed the OOMB with a wide latitude of investigatory and prosecutory prerogatives virtually free from legislative, executive or judicial intervention are the moving reasons for this rule.[30]

GR NO. 154532

2006-10-27

PETRON CORPORATION v. NLRC

GARCIA, J.

In outrightly dismissing the petition, the CA relied on Loquias v. Office of the Ombudsman.[17] The appellate court's reliance on that case is misplaced. For, in the subsequent case of Micro Sales Operation Network and Willy Bendol v. NLRC, et. al., [18] wherein the CA based its dismissal of the therein similarly defective petition for certiorari on the strength of Loquias, this Court ruled: The Court of Appeals relied on Loquias v. Office of the Ombudsman, which held that a certification on non-forum shopping signed by only one of two or more petitioners is defective, unless he was duly authorized by his co-petitioner. However, the said ruling applies when the co-parties are being sued in their individual capacities. Note that the petitioners in Loquias are the mayor, vice-mayor, and three members of the municipal board of San Miguel, Zamboanga del Sur. The said co-parties were charged with violation of Republic Act No. 3019 15 in their various capacities.

GR NO. 150865

2006-06-30

ART FUENTEBELLA v. DARLICA CASTRO

AZCUNA, J.

Likewise, where there are several petitioners, it is insufficient that only one of them executes the certification, absent a showing that he was so authorized by the others. That certification requires personal knowledge and it cannot be presumed that the signatory knew that his co-petitioners had the same or similar actions filed or pending.[18]

GR NO. 159190

2006-05-30

CAYETANO A. TEJANO v. OMBUDSMAN

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

This Court has been consistent in holding that it will not interfere with the Ombudsman's exercise of his constitutionally mandated investigatory and prosecutory powers, and respect the initiative and independence inherent in the Ombudsman who "beholden to no one, acts as the champion of the people and the preserver of the integrity of public service."[15] Such discretionary power of the Ombudsman is beyond the domain of this Court to review, save in cases where there is clear showing of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction of the latter.

GR NO. 149665

2006-01-25

REYNALDO C. TOLENTINO v. FLORDELIZA RIVERA

CORONA, J.

Loquias v. Office of the Ombudsman[53] involved a similarly defective petition that was challenged for non-compliance with the rule on certification of non-forum shopping, as only one of the co-petitioners had signed it. In upholding the respondent's objection rooted in Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, we said:At the outset, it is noted that the Verification and Certification (of Non-Forum Shopping) was signed by Antonio Din, Jr., one of the petitioners in the instant case. We agree with the Solicitor General that the petition is defective. Section 5, Rule 7 expressly provides that it is the plaintiff or principal party who shall certify under oath that he has not commenced any action involving the same issues in any court, etc. Only petitioner Din, the Vice-Mayor of San Miguel, Zamboanga del Sur, signed the certification. There is no showing that he was authorized by his co-petitioners to represent the latter and to sign the certification. It cannot likewise be presumed that petitioner Din knew, to the best of his knowledge, whether his co-petitioners had the same or similar actions or claims filed or pending. We find that substantial compliance will not suffice in a matter involving strict observance by the rules. The attestation contained in the certification on non-forum shopping requires personal knowledge by the party who executed the same. Petitioners must show reasonable cause for failure to personally sign the certification. Utter disregard of the rules cannot justly be rationalized by harking on the policy of liberal construction. In Chua v. Romualdo-Santos, et al.,[54] in which we quoted Loquias, we likewise upheld the dismissal by the Court of Appeals of a petition for certiorari:

GR NO. 157029

2005-12-15

JIMMY KENT RAMBUYON v. FIESTA BRANDS

QUISUMBING, J.

However, in Loquias v. Office of the Ombudsman,[18] we qualified the rule and stated that where there are two or more petitioners, a petition signed by only one of them is defective, unless he was duly authorized by his co-parties to represent them and to sign the certification.

GR NO. 155279

2005-10-11

MICRO SALES OPERATION NETWORK v. NLRC

QUISUMBING, J.

The Court of Appeals relied on Loquias v. Office of the Ombudsman,[13] which held that a certification on non-forum shopping signed by only one of two or more petitioners is defective, unless he was duly authorized by his co-petitioner. However, the said ruling applies when the co-parties are being sued in their individual capacities. Note that the petitioners in Loquias[14] are the mayor, vice-mayor, and three members of the municipal board of San Miguel, Zamboanga del Sur. The said co-parties were charged with violation of Republic Act No. 3019[15] in their various capacities.

GR No. 159190

2005-06-30

CAYETANO A. TEJANO v. OMBUDSMAN

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

champion of the people and the preserver of the integrity of public service."[15] Such discretionary power of the Ombudsman is beyond the domain of this Court to review, save in cases where there is clear showing of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction of the latter. Grave abuse of discretion is such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment on the part of the public officer concerned which is equivalent to an excess or lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive

GR No. 151136

2004-05-27

SPS. GAVINO C. GUDOY AND VIOLETA M. GUDOY v. JACINTA S. GUADALQUIVER

QUISUMBING, J.

In Loquias v. Office of the Ombudsman,[8] we categorically stated that where there are two or more plaintiffs or petitioners, a complaint or petition signed by only one of them is defective, unless he was duly authorized by his co-parties to represent them and to sign the certification. However, this ruling applies to the peculiar circumstances of the said case where the co-parties are being sued in their individual capacities. Note that the petitioners in Loquias are the mayor, vice-mayor, and three members of the municipal board of San Miguel, Zamboanga del Sur, who were criminally charged for allegedly withholding the salary increases and benefits of the municipality's health personnel. Petitioners were tried for alleged violation of Republic Act No. 3019[9] in their various respective personal capacities. Clearly, the conviction or acquittal of one accused would not necessarily apply to all the accused in a graft charge.

GR No. 153660

2003-06-10

PRUDENCIO BANTOLINO v. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS.

BELLOSILLO, J.

In its disavowal of liability, respondent commented that since the other alleged affiants were not presented in court to affirm their statements, much less to be cross-examined, their affidavits should, as the Court of Appeals rightly held, be stricken off the records for being self-serving, hearsay and inadmissible in evidence. With respect to Nestor Romero, respondent points out that he should not have been impleaded in the instant petition since he already voluntarily executed a Compromise Agreement, Waiver and Quitclaim in consideration of P450,000.00. Finally, respondent argues that the instant petition should be dismissed in view of the failure of petitioners[7] to sign the petition as well as the verification and certification of non-forum shopping, in clear violation of the principle laid down in Loquias v. Office of the Ombudsman.[8]

GR No. 131175

2001-08-28

SPS. JOVITO VALENZUELA AND NORMA VALENZUELA v. CA AND SPS. MANUEL T. DE GUIA AND LETICIA MARIANO DE GUIA AND REGISTER OF DEEDS OF PARAÑAQUE CITY

BUENA, J.

On 16 September 1981, private respondents spouses De Guia, upon discovering that the subject real properties were sold and transferred by the spouses Valenzuela to herein co-petitioners spouses Alfredo and Bella Gonzales Quiazon, filed Civil Case No. PQ- 9432-P[6] for annulment of sale, cancellation of title and damages, against spouses Valenzuela, spouses Quiazon, and the Register of Deeds of Pasay City. In the complaint, private respondents spouses De Guia prayed specifically for the annulment of the deed of sale executed by the spouses Valenzuela in favor of the spouses Quiazon, cancellation of TCT Nos. 39396 and 39397 in the name of spouses Quiazon, and the reinstatement of TCT No. 39142 in the name of the spouses Valenzuela, or in the alternative, the reconveyance of the subject properties by the spouses Quiazon to spouses Valenzuela.

GR No. 140153

2001-03-28

ANTONIO DOCENA v. RICARDO P. LAPESURA

GONZAGA-REYES, J.

It has been our previous ruling that the certificate of non-forum shopping should be signed by all the petitioners or plaintiffs in a case, and that the signing by only one of them is insufficient. In the case of Efren Loquias, et. al. vs. Office of the Ombudsman, et. al.,[26] we held that the signing of the Verification and the Certification on Non-Forum Shopping by only one of the petitioners constitutes a defect in the petition.[27] The attestation contained in the certification on non-forum shopping requires personal knowledge by the party executing the same,[28] and the lone signing petitioner cannot be presumed to have personal knowledge of the filing or non-filing by his co-petitioners of any action or claim the same as or similar to the current petition. To merit the Court's consideration, petitioners must show reasonable cause for failure to personally sign the certification.

	GR No. 152923 2009-01-19	NORTHEASTERN COLLEGE TEACHERS v. NORTHEASTERN COLLEGE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In case there are several petitioners, failure of one of the petitioners to sign the certificate against forum shopping constitutes a defect in the petition, which is a ground for dismissing the same.[80] In Tolentino v. Rivera,[81] we held that for the relaxation of said rule, two conditions must be complied with: first, petitioners must show justifiable cause for their failure to personally sign the certification; and second, they must also be able to prove that the outright dismissal of the petition would seriously impair the orderly administration of justice. Thus, to merit the court's consideration, petitioners must show reasonable cause for failure to personally sign the certification[82] and convince the court that the outright dismissal of the petition would defeat the administration of justice.[83]
	GR No. 153690 2008-08-26	DAVID LU v. PATERNO LU YM NACHURA, J.
On December 20, 2001, the CA granted[22] the Lu Ym father and sons' petition and, thus, dismissed the complaint filed by David Lu, et al. for the parties' (except David Lu) failure to sign the certificate of non-forum shopping. In ruling for the dismissal of the initiatory pleading, the court applied Loquias v. Ombudsman.[23] As a consequence of the dismissal of the complaint, the appellate court likewise annulled the resolutions placing the corporation under receivership and appointing the receivers.[24] On May 28, 2002, the CA denied the motion for reconsideration[25] filed by David Lu, et al. Hence, the petition for review on certiorari before this Court filed by David Lu alone in G.R. No. 153690.
	GR NOS. 158786 & 158789 2007-10-19	TOYOTA MOTOR PHILS. CORP. WORKERS ASSOCIATION v. NLRC VELASCO, JR., J.
In this case, the problem is not the absence but the adequacy of the Union's verification, since only 159 out of the 227 petitioners executed the verification. Undeniably, the petition meets the requirement on the verification with respect to the 159 petitioners who executed the verification, attesting that they have sufficient knowledge of the truth and correctness of the allegations of the petition. However, their signatures cannot be considered as verification of the petition by the other 68 named petitioners unless the latter gave written authorization to the 159 petitioners to sign the verification on their behalf. Thus, in Loquias v. Office of the Ombudsman, we ruled that the petition satisfies the formal requirements only with regard to the petitioner who signed the petition but not his co-petitioner who did not sign nor authorize the other petitioner to sign it on his behalf.[32] The proper ruling in this situation is to consider the petition as compliant with the formal requirements with respect to the parties who signed it and, therefore, can be given due course only with regard to them. The other petitioners who did not sign the verification and certificate against forum shopping cannot be recognized as petitioners have no legal standing before the Court. The petition should be dismissed outright with respect to the non-conforming petitioners.
	GR NO. 159876 2007-06-26	DINO A. CRUCILLO v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN GARCIA, J.
The Court does not ordinarily interfere with the Ombudsman's finding and call on the existence of a probable cause.[28] Practical consideration as well as respect for the Constitution and R.A. No. 6770[29] which have endowed the OOMB with a wide latitude of investigatory and prosecutory prerogatives virtually free from legislative, executive or judicial intervention are the moving reasons for this rule.[30]
	GR NO. 154532 2006-10-27	PETRON CORPORATION v. NLRC GARCIA, J.
In outrightly dismissing the petition, the CA relied on Loquias v. Office of the Ombudsman.[17] The appellate court's reliance on that case is misplaced. For, in the subsequent case of Micro Sales Operation Network and Willy Bendol v. NLRC, et. al., [18] wherein the CA based its dismissal of the therein similarly defective petition for certiorari on the strength of Loquias, this Court ruled: The Court of Appeals relied on Loquias v. Office of the Ombudsman, which held that a certification on non-forum shopping signed by only one of two or more petitioners is defective, unless he was duly authorized by his co-petitioner. However, the said ruling applies when the co-parties are being sued in their individual capacities. Note that the petitioners in Loquias are the mayor, vice-mayor, and three members of the municipal board of San Miguel, Zamboanga del Sur. The said co-parties were charged with violation of Republic Act No. 3019 15 in their various capacities.
	GR NO. 150865 2006-06-30	ART FUENTEBELLA v. DARLICA CASTRO AZCUNA, J.
Likewise, where there are several petitioners, it is insufficient that only one of them executes the certification, absent a showing that he was so authorized by the others. That certification requires personal knowledge and it cannot be presumed that the signatory knew that his co-petitioners had the same or similar actions filed or pending.[18]
	GR NO. 159190 2006-05-30	CAYETANO A. TEJANO v. OMBUDSMAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
This Court has been consistent in holding that it will not interfere with the Ombudsman's exercise of his constitutionally mandated investigatory and prosecutory powers, and respect the initiative and independence inherent in the Ombudsman who "beholden to no one, acts as the champion of the people and the preserver of the integrity of public service."[15] Such discretionary power of the Ombudsman is beyond the domain of this Court to review, save in cases where there is clear showing of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction of the latter.
	GR NO. 149665 2006-01-25	REYNALDO C. TOLENTINO v. FLORDELIZA RIVERA CORONA, J.
Loquias v. Office of the Ombudsman[53] involved a similarly defective petition that was challenged for non-compliance with the rule on certification of non-forum shopping, as only one of the co-petitioners had signed it. In upholding the respondent's objection rooted in Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, we said:At the outset, it is noted that the Verification and Certification (of Non-Forum Shopping) was signed by Antonio Din, Jr., one of the petitioners in the instant case. We agree with the Solicitor General that the petition is defective. Section 5, Rule 7 expressly provides that it is the plaintiff or principal party who shall certify under oath that he has not commenced any action involving the same issues in any court, etc. Only petitioner Din, the Vice-Mayor of San Miguel, Zamboanga del Sur, signed the certification. There is no showing that he was authorized by his co-petitioners to represent the latter and to sign the certification. It cannot likewise be presumed that petitioner Din knew, to the best of his knowledge, whether his co-petitioners had the same or similar actions or claims filed or pending. We find that substantial compliance will not suffice in a matter involving strict observance by the rules. The attestation contained in the certification on non-forum shopping requires personal knowledge by the party who executed the same. Petitioners must show reasonable cause for failure to personally sign the certification. Utter disregard of the rules cannot justly be rationalized by harking on the policy of liberal construction. In Chua v. Romualdo-Santos, et al.,[54] in which we quoted Loquias, we likewise upheld the dismissal by the Court of Appeals of a petition for certiorari:
	GR NO. 157029 2005-12-15	JIMMY KENT RAMBUYON v. FIESTA BRANDS QUISUMBING, J.
However, in Loquias v. Office of the Ombudsman,[18] we qualified the rule and stated that where there are two or more petitioners, a petition signed by only one of them is defective, unless he was duly authorized by his co-parties to represent them and to sign the certification.
	GR NO. 155279 2005-10-11	MICRO SALES OPERATION NETWORK v. NLRC QUISUMBING, J.
The Court of Appeals relied on Loquias v. Office of the Ombudsman,[13] which held that a certification on non-forum shopping signed by only one of two or more petitioners is defective, unless he was duly authorized by his co-petitioner. However, the said ruling applies when the co-parties are being sued in their individual capacities. Note that the petitioners in Loquias[14] are the mayor, vice-mayor, and three members of the municipal board of San Miguel, Zamboanga del Sur. The said co-parties were charged with violation of Republic Act No. 3019[15] in their various capacities.
	GR No. 159190 2005-06-30	CAYETANO A. TEJANO v. OMBUDSMAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
champion of the people and the preserver of the integrity of public service."[15] Such discretionary power of the Ombudsman is beyond the domain of this Court to review, save in cases where there is clear showing of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction of the latter. Grave abuse of discretion is such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment on the part of the public officer concerned which is equivalent to an excess or lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive
	GR No. 151136 2004-05-27	SPS. GAVINO C. GUDOY AND VIOLETA M. GUDOY v. JACINTA S. GUADALQUIVER QUISUMBING, J.
In Loquias v. Office of the Ombudsman,[8] we categorically stated that where there are two or more plaintiffs or petitioners, a complaint or petition signed by only one of them is defective, unless he was duly authorized by his co-parties to represent them and to sign the certification. However, this ruling applies to the peculiar circumstances of the said case where the co-parties are being sued in their individual capacities. Note that the petitioners in Loquias are the mayor, vice-mayor, and three members of the municipal board of San Miguel, Zamboanga del Sur, who were criminally charged for allegedly withholding the salary increases and benefits of the municipality's health personnel. Petitioners were tried for alleged violation of Republic Act No. 3019[9] in their various respective personal capacities. Clearly, the conviction or acquittal of one accused would not necessarily apply to all the accused in a graft charge.
	GR No. 153660 2003-06-10	PRUDENCIO BANTOLINO v. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS. BELLOSILLO, J.
In its disavowal of liability, respondent commented that since the other alleged affiants were not presented in court to affirm their statements, much less to be cross-examined, their affidavits should, as the Court of Appeals rightly held, be stricken off the records for being self-serving, hearsay and inadmissible in evidence. With respect to Nestor Romero, respondent points out that he should not have been impleaded in the instant petition since he already voluntarily executed a Compromise Agreement, Waiver and Quitclaim in consideration of P450,000.00. Finally, respondent argues that the instant petition should be dismissed in view of the failure of petitioners[7] to sign the petition as well as the verification and certification of non-forum shopping, in clear violation of the principle laid down in Loquias v. Office of the Ombudsman.[8]
	GR No. 131175 2001-08-28	SPS. JOVITO VALENZUELA AND NORMA VALENZUELA v. CA AND SPS. MANUEL T. DE GUIA AND LETICIA MARIANO DE GUIA AND REGISTER OF DEEDS OF PARAÑAQUE CITY BUENA, J.
On 16 September 1981, private respondents spouses De Guia, upon discovering that the subject real properties were sold and transferred by the spouses Valenzuela to herein co-petitioners spouses Alfredo and Bella Gonzales Quiazon, filed Civil Case No. PQ- 9432-P[6] for annulment of sale, cancellation of title and damages, against spouses Valenzuela, spouses Quiazon, and the Register of Deeds of Pasay City. In the complaint, private respondents spouses De Guia prayed specifically for the annulment of the deed of sale executed by the spouses Valenzuela in favor of the spouses Quiazon, cancellation of TCT Nos. 39396 and 39397 in the name of spouses Quiazon, and the reinstatement of TCT No. 39142 in the name of the spouses Valenzuela, or in the alternative, the reconveyance of the subject properties by the spouses Quiazon to spouses Valenzuela.
	GR No. 140153 2001-03-28	ANTONIO DOCENA v. RICARDO P. LAPESURA GONZAGA-REYES, J.
It has been our previous ruling that the certificate of non-forum shopping should be signed by all the petitioners or plaintiffs in a case, and that the signing by only one of them is insufficient. In the case of Efren Loquias, et. al. vs. Office of the Ombudsman, et. al.,[26] we held that the signing of the Verification and the Certification on Non-Forum Shopping by only one of the petitioners constitutes a defect in the petition.[27] The attestation contained in the certification on non-forum shopping requires personal knowledge by the party executing the same,[28] and the lone signing petitioner cannot be presumed to have personal knowledge of the filing or non-filing by his co-petitioners of any action or claim the same as or similar to the current petition. To merit the Court's consideration, petitioners must show reasonable cause for failure to personally sign the certification.

EFREN O. LOQUIAS v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN