Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

HEIRS OF AGAPITO T. OLARTE v. OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OF PHILIPPINES

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 163039 2011-04-06	HEIRS OF FRANCISCO RETUYA v. CA PERALTA, J.
As correctly observed by the CA, while we have in a number of cases[32] applied the substantial compliance rule on the filing of the certification of non-forum shopping, specially when majority of the principal parties had signed the same and who shared a common interest, We agree with the CA that such leniency finds no applicability in this case because of petitioners' dishonesty committed against the appellate court. A perusal of the verification and certification against forum shopping attached to the petition for annulment of judgment filed in the CA would show that there was a signature above the typewritten name of Quintin. In fact, written below the signature of Quintin was Community Tax Certificate (CTC) No. 06570132, issued on January 8, 2003 in Mandaue City. Thus, it would appear that Quintin, who was already dead at the time the petition was filed, had signed the verification and certification of non-forum shopping and he was even in possession of a CTC. Petitioners' actuation showed their lack of forthrightness to the CA which the latter correctly found to be a dishonest act committed against it.
	GR No. 146548 2009-12-18	HEIRS OF DOMINGO HERNANDEZ v. PLARIDEL MINGOA
Even if only petitioner Domingo Hernandez, Jr. executed the Verification/Certification[26] against forum-shopping, this will not deter us from proceeding with the judicial determination of the issues in this petition. As we ratiocinated in Heirs of Olarte v. Office of the President:[27]
	GR NO. 159919 2007-08-08	COMPOSITE ENTERPRISES v. EMILIO M. CAPAROSO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Verily, litigation is not a game of technicalities. While the swift unclogging of court dockets is a laudable objective, granting substantial justice is an even more urgent ideal.[25] Indeed, on numerous occasions, this Court has relaxed the rigid application of the rules to afford the parties the opportunity to fully ventilate their cases on the merits. This is in line with the time-honored principle that cases should be decided only after giving all parties the chance to argue their causes and defenses. Technicality and procedural imperfection should thus not serve as basis of decisions.[26] Technicalities should never be used to defeat the substantive rights of the other party.[27] Every party-litigant must be afforded the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his cause, free from the constraints of technicalities.[28] In that way, the ends of justice would be better served.[29] For, indeed, the general objective of procedure is to facilitate the application of justice to the rival claims of contending parties, bearing always in mind that procedure is not to hinder but to promote the administration of justice.[30]
	GR NO. 156536 2006-10-31	JOSEPH CUA v. GLORIA A. VARGAS AZCUNA, J.
The general rule is that the certificate of non-forum shopping must be signed by all the plaintiffs or petitioners in a case and the signature of only one of them is insufficient.[31] Nevertheless, the rules on forum shopping, which were designed to promote and facilitate the orderly administration of justice, should not be interpreted with such absolute literalness as to subvert their own ultimate and legitimate objective. Strict compliance with the provisions regarding the certificate of non-forum shopping merely underscores its mandatory nature in that the certification cannot be altogether dispensed with or its requirements completely disregarded.[32] Under justifiable circumstances, the Court has relaxed the rule requiring the submission of such certification considering that although it is obligatory, it is not jurisdictional.[33]
	GR NO. 168943 2006-10-27	IGLESIA NI CRISTO v. THELMA A. PONFERRADA CALLEJO, SR., J.
The same liberality should likewise be applied to the certification against forum shopping. The general rule is that the certification must be signed by all plaintiffs in a case and the signature of only one of them is insufficient. However, the Court has also stressed in a number of cases that the rules on forum shopping were designed to promote and facilitate the orderly administration of justice and thus should not be interpreted with such absolute literalness as to subvert its own ultimate and legitimate objective. The rule of substantial compliance may be availed of with respect to the contents of the certification. This is because the requirement of strict compliance with the provisions merely underscores its mandatory nature in that the certification cannot be altogether dispensed with or its requirements completely disregarded.[23]