Lawyerly

GR No. 179874

2015-06-22

ADELFA DIO TOLENTINO v. SPS. MARIA JERERA

PERALTA, J.

In Ateneo de Naga University v. Manalo[38], it was held that the verification requirement is deemed substantially complied with when only one of the heirs-plaintiffs, who has sufficient knowledge and belief to swear to the truth of the allegations in the petition, signed the verification attached to it. Such verification was deemed sufficient assurance that matters alleged in the petition have been made in good faith or are true and correct, not merely speculative. Likewise, liberality and leniency were accorded in some cases where those who did not sign were relatives of the lone signatory[39] of the certification against forum shopping when they all share a common interest in a disputed property and invoke a common cause of action or defense. As held in Iglesia Ni Cristo v. Hon. Thelma A. Ponferrada[40]

GR No. 191225

2014-10-13

ZARSONA MEDICAL CLINIC v. PHILIPPINE HEALTH INSURANCE CORPORATION

PEREZ, J.

As to certification against forum shopping, non-compliance therewith or a defect therein, unlike in verification, is generally not curable by its subsequent submission or correction thereof, unless there is a need to relax the Rule on the ground of "substantial compliance" or presence of "special circumstances or compelling reasons."[12] Rule 7, Section 5 of the Rules of the Court, requires that the certification should be signed by the "petitioner or principal party" himself. The rationale behind this is "because only the petitioner himself has actual knowledge of whether or not he has initiated similar actions or proceedings in different courts or agencies."[13]

GR No. 181119

2013-07-31

ARNEL ALICANDO Y BRIONES v. PEOPLE

REYES, J.

"Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court categorically states that the petition filed shall raise only questions of law, which must be distinctly set forth. A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. For a question to be one of law, the same must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them. The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances. Once it is clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence presented, the question posed is one of fact."[12]

GR No. 172590

2013-01-07

MARY LOUISE R. ANDERSON v. ENRIQUE HO

DEL CASTILLO, J.

In Vda. De Formoso v. Philippine National Bank,[32] the Court reiterated the guidelines respecting non-compliance with or submission of a defective certificate of non-forum shopping, the relevant portions of which are as follows: 4) As to certification against forum shopping, non-compliance therewith or a defect therein, x x x, is generally not curable by its subsequent submission or correction thereof, unless there is a need to relax the Rule on the ground of 'substantial compliance' or presence of 'special circumstances or compelling reasons'.

GR No. 183026

2012-11-14

NESTOR N. PADALHIN v. NELSON D. LAVIÑA

REYES, J.

Obedience to the requirements of procedural rules is needed if we are to expect fair results therefrom, and utter disregard of the rules cannot justly be rationalized by harking on the policy of liberal construction.[20] Time and again, this Court has strictly enforced the requirement of verification and certification of non-forum shopping under the Rules of Court.[21] Verification is required to secure an assurance that the allegations of the petition have been made in good faith, or are true and correct and not merely speculative.[22] The attestation on non-forum shopping requires personal knowledge by the party executing the same, 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 similar to the current petition.[23]

GR No. 192650

2012-10-24

FELIX MARTOS v. NEW SAN JOSE BUILDERS

MENDOZA, J.

The lone signature of Martos would have been sufficient if he was authorized by his co-petitioners to sign for them. Unfortunately, petitioners failed to adduce proof that he was so authorized. The complaints of the other parties in the case of Nellie Vda. De Formoso v. v. PNB[13] suffered a similar fate. Thus: Admittedly, among the seven (7) petitioners mentioned, only Malcaba signed the verification and certification of non-forum shopping in the subject petition. There was no proof that Malcaba was authorized by his co-petitioners to sign for them. There was no special power of attorney shown by the Formosos authorizing Malcaba as their attorney-in-fact in filing a petition for review on certiorari. Neither could the petitioners give at least a reasonable explanation as to why only he signed the verification and certification of non-forum shopping.

GR No. 197151

2012-10-22

SM LAND v. CITY OF MANILA

PERALTA, J.

Thus, in Vda. de Formoso v. Philippine National Bank,[24] this Court reiterated, in capsule form, the rule on non-compliance with the requirements on, or submission of defective verification and certification of non-forum shopping, to wit: 1) A distinction must be made between non-compliance with the requirement on or submission of defective verification, and non-compliance with the requirement on or submission of defective certification against forum shopping.

GR No. 187521

2012-03-14

F.F. CRUZ v. HR CONSTRUCTION CORP.

REYES, J.

A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. For a question to be one of law, the same must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them. The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances. Once it is clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence presented, the question posed is one of fact.[28]

GR No. 186269

2012-02-15

SPS. ROMAN A. PASCUAL AND MERCEDITA R. PASCUAL v. SPS. ANTONIO BALLESTEROS AND LORENZA MELCHOR-BALLESTEROS

REYES, J.

Primarily, Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court categorically states that the petition filed shall raise only questions of law, which must be distinctly set forth. A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. For a question to be one of law, the same must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them. The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances. Once it is clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence presented, the question posed is one of fact.[14]

GR No. 189647

2012-02-06

NANCY T. LORZANO v. JUAN TABAYAG

REYES, J.

Primarily, Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court categorically states that the petition filed shall raise only questions of law, which must be distinctly set forth. A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. For a question to be one of law, the same must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them. The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances. Once it is clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence presented, the question posed is one of fact.[11]

GR No. 174082

2012-01-16

GEORGIA T. ESTEL v. RECAREDO P. DIEGO

PERALTA, J.

Verification is deemed substantially complied with when, as in the instant case, one who has ample knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations in the complaint or petition signs the verification, and when matters alleged in the petition have been made in good faith or are true and correct.[21]

	GR No. 179874 2015-06-22	ADELFA DIO TOLENTINO v. SPS. MARIA JERERA PERALTA, J.
In Ateneo de Naga University v. Manalo[38], it was held that the verification requirement is deemed substantially complied with when only one of the heirs-plaintiffs, who has sufficient knowledge and belief to swear to the truth of the allegations in the petition, signed the verification attached to it. Such verification was deemed sufficient assurance that matters alleged in the petition have been made in good faith or are true and correct, not merely speculative. Likewise, liberality and leniency were accorded in some cases where those who did not sign were relatives of the lone signatory[39] of the certification against forum shopping when they all share a common interest in a disputed property and invoke a common cause of action or defense. As held in Iglesia Ni Cristo v. Hon. Thelma A. Ponferrada[40]
	GR No. 191225 2014-10-13	ZARSONA MEDICAL CLINIC v. PHILIPPINE HEALTH INSURANCE CORPORATION PEREZ, J.
As to certification against forum shopping, non-compliance therewith or a defect therein, unlike in verification, is generally not curable by its subsequent submission or correction thereof, unless there is a need to relax the Rule on the ground of "substantial compliance" or presence of "special circumstances or compelling reasons."[12] Rule 7, Section 5 of the Rules of the Court, requires that the certification should be signed by the "petitioner or principal party" himself. The rationale behind this is "because only the petitioner himself has actual knowledge of whether or not he has initiated similar actions or proceedings in different courts or agencies."[13]
	GR No. 181119 2013-07-31	ARNEL ALICANDO Y BRIONES v. PEOPLE REYES, J.
"Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court categorically states that the petition filed shall raise only questions of law, which must be distinctly set forth. A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. For a question to be one of law, the same must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them. The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances. Once it is clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence presented, the question posed is one of fact."[12]
	GR No. 172590 2013-01-07	MARY LOUISE R. ANDERSON v. ENRIQUE HO DEL CASTILLO, J.
In Vda. De Formoso v. Philippine National Bank,[32] the Court reiterated the guidelines respecting non-compliance with or submission of a defective certificate of non-forum shopping, the relevant portions of which are as follows: 4) As to certification against forum shopping, non-compliance therewith or a defect therein, x x x, is generally not curable by its subsequent submission or correction thereof, unless there is a need to relax the Rule on the ground of 'substantial compliance' or presence of 'special circumstances or compelling reasons'.
	GR No. 183026 2012-11-14	NESTOR N. PADALHIN v. NELSON D. LAVIÑA REYES, J.
Obedience to the requirements of procedural rules is needed if we are to expect fair results therefrom, and utter disregard of the rules cannot justly be rationalized by harking on the policy of liberal construction.[20] Time and again, this Court has strictly enforced the requirement of verification and certification of non-forum shopping under the Rules of Court.[21] Verification is required to secure an assurance that the allegations of the petition have been made in good faith, or are true and correct and not merely speculative.[22] The attestation on non-forum shopping requires personal knowledge by the party executing the same, 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 similar to the current petition.[23]
	GR No. 192650 2012-10-24	FELIX MARTOS v. NEW SAN JOSE BUILDERS MENDOZA, J.
The lone signature of Martos would have been sufficient if he was authorized by his co-petitioners to sign for them. Unfortunately, petitioners failed to adduce proof that he was so authorized. The complaints of the other parties in the case of Nellie Vda. De Formoso v. v. PNB[13] suffered a similar fate. Thus: Admittedly, among the seven (7) petitioners mentioned, only Malcaba signed the verification and certification of non-forum shopping in the subject petition. There was no proof that Malcaba was authorized by his co-petitioners to sign for them. There was no special power of attorney shown by the Formosos authorizing Malcaba as their attorney-in-fact in filing a petition for review on certiorari. Neither could the petitioners give at least a reasonable explanation as to why only he signed the verification and certification of non-forum shopping.
	GR No. 197151 2012-10-22	SM LAND v. CITY OF MANILA PERALTA, J.
Thus, in Vda. de Formoso v. Philippine National Bank,[24] this Court reiterated, in capsule form, the rule on non-compliance with the requirements on, or submission of defective verification and certification of non-forum shopping, to wit: 1) A distinction must be made between non-compliance with the requirement on or submission of defective verification, and non-compliance with the requirement on or submission of defective certification against forum shopping.
	GR No. 187521 2012-03-14	F.F. CRUZ v. HR CONSTRUCTION CORP. REYES, J.
A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. For a question to be one of law, the same must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them. The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances. Once it is clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence presented, the question posed is one of fact.[28]
	GR No. 186269 2012-02-15	SPS. ROMAN A. PASCUAL AND MERCEDITA R. PASCUAL v. SPS. ANTONIO BALLESTEROS AND LORENZA MELCHOR-BALLESTEROS REYES, J.
Primarily, Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court categorically states that the petition filed shall raise only questions of law, which must be distinctly set forth. A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. For a question to be one of law, the same must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them. The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances. Once it is clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence presented, the question posed is one of fact.[14]
	GR No. 189647 2012-02-06	NANCY T. LORZANO v. JUAN TABAYAG REYES, J.
Primarily, Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court categorically states that the petition filed shall raise only questions of law, which must be distinctly set forth. A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. For a question to be one of law, the same must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them. The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances. Once it is clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence presented, the question posed is one of fact.[11]
	GR No. 174082 2012-01-16	GEORGIA T. ESTEL v. RECAREDO P. DIEGO PERALTA, J.
Verification is deemed substantially complied with when, as in the instant case, one who has ample knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations in the complaint or petition signs the verification, and when matters alleged in the petition have been made in good faith or are true and correct.[21]

NELLIE VDA. DE FORMOSO v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK