Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PET PLANS v. CA

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 181201 2011-02-21	UNIVERSITY OF MINDANAO v. PHILIPPINE DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION PERALTA, J.
Lastly, petitioners would have this Court apply the jurisprudence enunciated in Lamzon v. NLRC (Lamzon),[59] Antonio v. Comelec (Antonio)[60] and Pet Plans, Inc. v. Court of Appeals (Pet Plans),[61] however, a perusal of the said decisions would show that the same are not at fours with herein petition. In Lamzon, the appeal filed was not perfected within the reglementary period because the appeal bond was filed out of time. In Antonio, the appeal was dismissed for having been filed out of time under Comelec rules. In Pet Plans, the appeal was dismissed for failure to comply with the rules on verification and certificate of non-forum shopping. The present petition, on the other hand, involves substantial compliance to the form and contents of the notice of appeal and record on appeal. The decisions relied upon by petitioners, therefore, have no application to herein petition.
	GR No. 175049 2008-11-27	HEIRS OF SOFIA NANAMAN LONOY v. SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In PET Plans, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[35] this Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' dismissal of the petition, since the verification and certification of non-forum shopping was signed by the company's vice president for legal affairs/corporate secretary without any showing that he was authorized to do so.
	GR No. 155806 2008-04-08	TIBLE v. ROYAL SAVINGS REYES, R.T., J.
Regrettably, we find substantial compliance will not suffice in a matter involving strict observance as provided for in Circular No. 28-91. The attestation contained in the certification on non-forum shopping requires personal knowledge by the party who executed the same. To merit the Court's consideration, petitioner here must show reasonable cause for failure to personally sign the certification. The petitioners must convince the court that the outright dismissal of the petition would defeat the administration of justice. However, the petitioner did not give any explanation to warrant their exemption from the strict application of the rule. Utter disregard of the rules cannot justly be rationalized by harking on the policy of liberal construction.[39] (Emphasis supplied) Too, the party litigant must convince the Court that the outright dismissal of the petition would defeat the administration of justice.[40] The Court's pronouncements in Pet Plans, Inc. v. Court of Appeals[41] are illustrative:x x x In Loquias vs. Office of the Ombudsman (338 SCRA 62, 68 [2000]), we held that failure of one of the petitioners to sign the verification and certificate against forum shopping constitutes a defect in the petition, which is a ground for dismissing the same. While we have held in rulings subsequent to Loquias that this rule may be relaxed, petitioners must comply with two conditions: 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. x x x[42] Recapitulating, the two pre-requisites for the relaxation of the rules are: (a) justifiable cause or plausible reason for non-compliance; and (b) compelling reason to convince the court that outright dismissal of the petition would seriously impair the orderly administration of justice.
	GR NO. 146068 2006-08-31	DR. REY C. TAMBONG v. R. JORGE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Here, petitioner failed to state the first date. He admitted that he did not allege in his petition for certiorari filed with the Court of Appeals when he received a copy of the NLRC Resolution of October 29, 1999 reversing the Labor Arbiter's Decision which dismissed his (petitioner's) complaint for illegal dismissal. This date is material for it would determine whether his motion for reconsideration of the said Resolution was seasonably filed. While there are exceptional cases where we set aside procedural defects to correct a patent injustice, however, petitioner failed to satisfy the Court of Appeals that the noncompliance with the requirement is justified. We have ruled time and again that litigants should have the amplest opportunity for a proper and just disposition of their cause free, as much as possible, from the constraints of procedural technicalities. But equally settled is the rule that, save for the most persuasive of reasons, strict compliance with procedural rules is enjoined to facilitate the orderly administration of justice.[4]
	GR NO. 147478 2006-07-17	METRO DRUG DISTRIBUTION v. . CORONA, J.
We have ruled time and again that litigants should have the amplest opportunity for a proper and just disposition of their cause " free, as much as possible, from the constraints of procedural technicalities. Our judicial system encourages full adjudication of the merits of an appeal. On the other hand, we also follow the rule that, save for the most persuasive of reasons, strict compliance with procedural requirements must be observed to facilitate the orderly administration of justice.[14]
	GR NO. 150865 2006-06-30	ART FUENTEBELLA v. DARLICA CASTRO AZCUNA, J.
Thus, in Pet Plans, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[20] the Court stated:Where the President of the corporation was impleaded in his official capacity as such and no specific claim or charge against him, in his personal capacity, was alleged in the complaint filed with the National Labor Relations Commission but the Labor Arbiter's decision made him jointly and solidarily liable with the corporation, he then became a real party-in-interest whose stake have [sic] become distinct from those of the corporation and, as such, it became inevitable for him to sign the verification and certificate of non-forum shopping.
	GR NO. 147749 2006-06-22	SAN PABLO MANUFACTURING CORPORATION v. CIR CORONA, J.
In PET Plans, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[13] the Court upheld the dismissal by the Court of Appeals of the petition on the ground that the verification and certification against forum shopping was signed by PET Plans, Inc.'s first vice-president for legal affairs/corporate secretary without any certification that he was authorized to sign in behalf of the corporation.
	GR NO. 140862 2006-04-25	WILSON GO v. ANITA RICO SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
It bears stressing that a certification by counsel and not by the principal party himself is no certification at all. The reason for requiring that it must be signed by the principal party himself is that he has actual knowledge, or knows better than anyone else, whether he has initiated similar action/s in other courts, agencies or tribunals.[10] Clearly, the subject petition suffers from a fatal defect warranting its dismissal[11] by the Court of Appeals in its assailed Resolutions.
	GR NO. 149665 2006-01-25	REYNALDO C. TOLENTINO v. FLORDELIZA RIVERA CORONA, J.
In the petition for certiorari and prohibition in the Court of Appeals, the verification/certification was signed only by petitioner Socorro Chua. There was no showing that petitioner Chua was authorized by her co-petitioners to represent the latter and sign the certification. It cannot likewise be presumed that petitioner Chua knew, to the best of her knowledge, whether her co-petitioners had the same or similar actions or claims filed or pending. Finally, in PET PLANS v. Court of Appeals,[55] we ruled:While we have held in rulings subsequent to Loquias that this rule may be relaxed, petitioners must comply with two conditions: 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. In the present case, we find that petitioners failed to prove the presence of these conditions. The dismissal by the Court of Appeals of CA-G.R. SP No. 62410 should have put petitioners on guard as to the basic procedural requirements in filing the petition. Notwithstanding such dismissal and their subsequent filing of a motion for reconsideration, petitioners still failed to substantially comply with the requirements of the Rules by the failure of Ocampo to sign the certificate of non-forum shopping. In the present petition filed before us, PET PLANS once again failed to submit proof that it has authorized Espino to file the present petition or to sign the verification and certificate against forum shopping attached thereto. Likewise, petitioner Ocampo again failed to sign the certificate of non-forum shopping. We cannot allow a party to gain an advantage from its flagrant disregard of the Rules. We find this fatal to petitioners' cause. As in the aforementioned cases, petitioner failed to show not only any authority to sign the certification of non-forum shopping on behalf of the Francisco spouses but also any compelling reason why they were unable to sign it. Neither do the facts bear out any of the conditions contemplated in PET Plans for a possible relaxation of the rule. Rather, it appears from the records that petitioner Tolentino merely used the spouses' names for whatever mileage he thought he could gain.