This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-08-22 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Regarding the certificate of non-forum shopping, the general rule is that all the petitioners or plaintiffs in a case should sign it.[25] However, the Court has time and again stressed that the rules on forum shopping, which were designed to promote the orderly administration of justice, do not interdict substantial compliance with its provisions under justifiable circumstances.[26] As has been ruled by the Court, the signature of any of the principal petitioners[27] or principal parties,[28] as Francisca is in this case, would constitute a substantial compliance with the rule on verification and certification of non-forum shopping. It cannot be overemphasized that Francisca herself was a principal party in Civil Case No. 3341-17 before the RTC and in the certiorari proceedings before the CA. Besides being an heir of Benedicto, Francisca, with her mother, Julita, was substituted for Benedicto in the instant case after his demise. | |||||
|
2006-11-02 |
VELASCO, JR., J. |
||||
| Anent the assailed verification and certification of non-forum shopping, it is shown that it substantially complied with the requirements of the Rules. Dismissal of appeals that is purely on technical grounds is frowned upon.[27] While only petitioner Ramon P. Ereneta signed the verification and certification of non-forum shopping such is not fatal to the instant petition. In Calo,[28] we agreed with petitioners that the signature of only one petitioner in the verification and certification of non-forum shopping satisfies the requirement under Section 2, Rule 42 of the Revised Rules on Civil Procedure.[29] In Calo, we relied on Condo Suite Club Travel, Inc., v. NLRC[30] where we ruled that the certification of non-forum shopping may be signed not only by the petitioners but also any of the principal parties. In the instant case, Mr. Ramon P. Erenta, a member of the Investment Committee of the Heritage Park Management Corporation, is a principal party in the instant case having been impleaded in Civil Case No. 99-0425 pending in the RTC. | |||||