Lawyerly

GR No. 171282

2013-11-27

SKM ART CRAFT CORPORATION v. EFREN BAUCA

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

The CA aptly noted that in Torres v. Specialized Packaging Development Corporation,[17] only two of the 25 petitioners therein signed the verification and certification against forum shopping. We said that the problem is not the lack of a verification, but the adequacy of one executed by only two of the 25 petitioners. These two signatories, we added, are unquestionably real parties in interest, who undoubtedly have sufficient knowledge and belief to swear to the truth of the allegations in the petition. This verification is enough assurance that the matters alleged therein have been made in good faith or are true and correct, not merely speculative. Hence, we ruled that the requirement of verification was substantially complied with. In Altres v. Empleo,[18] we also ruled that the verification requirement is deemed substantially complied with when 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, as in this case.

GR No. 141809

2013-04-08

JOSEFINA F. INGLES v. ESTRELLA T. ESTRADA

PEREZ, J.

Verily, the signatures of all of the Ingleses were not required to validly verify their certiorari petition. It suffices, according to Altres, that the verification was signed by at least one of the Ingleses who was competent to do so. In this case, the certiorari petition was verified by Josefina and Hector F. Ingles both of whom this Court finds competent to attest to the truth of the allegations of their petition, considering that they are unquestionably principal parties-in-interest to their certiorari petition.[137] Hence, their certiorari petition contains a substantially valid verification.

GR No. 169292

2011-04-13

SPS. FRANCISCO DE GUZMAN v. CESAR OCHOA

MENDOZA, J.

not be allowed to pursue simultaneous remedies in different fora, as this Q practice is detrimental to an orderly judicial procedure.[8]

GR No. 174084

2010-08-25

SPIC N' SPAN SERVICES CORPORATION v. GLORIA PAJE

BRION, J.

As we previously explained in Torres v. Specialized Packaging Development Corporation,[15] where only two of the 25 real parties-in-interest signed the verification, the verification by the two could be sufficient assurance that the allegations in the petition were made in good faith, are true and correct, and are not speculative. The lack of a verification in a pleading is only a formal defect, not a jurisdictional defect, and is not necessarily fatal to a case.[16] The primary reason for requiring a verification is simply to ensure that the allegations in the pleading are done in good faith, are true and correct, and are not mere speculations.[17]

GR No. 167710

2009-06-05

PEOPLE v. JOVEN DE GRANO

PERALTA, J.

The purpose of requiring a verification is to secure an assurance that the allegations in the petition have been made in good faith; or are true and correct, not merely speculative. This requirement is simply a condition affecting the form of pleadings, and noncompliance therewith does not necessarily render it fatally defective.[38] Truly, verification is only a formal, not a jurisdictional, requirement. Hence, it was sufficient that the private prosecutor signed the verification.

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. 179127

2008-12-24

IN-N-OUT BURGER v. SEHWANI

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Moreover, the Court deems it proper not to focus on the supposed technical infirmities of Atty. Baranda's Verification. It must be borne in mind that the purpose of requiring a verification is to secure an assurance that the allegations of the petition has been made in good faith; or are true and correct, not merely speculative. This requirement is simply a condition affecting the form of pleadings, and non-compliance therewith does not necessarily render it fatally defective. Indeed, verification is only a formal, not a jurisdictional requirement. In the interest of substantial justice, strict observance of procedural rules may be dispensed with for compelling reasons.[37] The vital issues raised in the instant Petition on the jurisdiction of the IPO Director for Legal Affairs and the IPO Director General over trademark cases justify the liberal application of the rules, so that the Court may give the said Petition due course and resolve the same on the merits.

GR No. 176405

2008-08-20

LEO WEE v. GEORGE DE CASTRO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Respondent deceased Jesus de Castro's failure to sign the Verification and Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping may be excused since he already executed an Affidavit[25] with respondent George de Castro that he had personal knowledge of the filing of Civil Case No. 1990. In Torres v. Specialized Packaging Development Corporation,[26] the Court ruled that the personal signing of the verification requirement was deemed substantially complied with when, as in the instant case, two out of 25 real parties-in-interest, who undoubtedly have sufficient knowledge and belief to swear to the truth of the allegations in the petition, signed the verification attached to it.

GR No. 164624

2008-08-11

SARI-SARI GROUP OF COMPANIES v. PIGLAS KAMAO

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

The purpose of requiring a verification is to secure an assurance that the allegations of the petition have been made in good faith, or are true and correct, not merely speculative.[31] On the other hand, the rule against forum shopping is rooted in the principle that a party-litigant shall not be allowed to pursue simultaneous remedies in different fora, as this practice is detrimental to orderly judicial procedure.[32]

GR No. 168111

2008-07-04

ANTONIO TAN v. AMELITO BALLENA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

In Torres v. Specialized Packaging Development Corporation,[44] we ruled that the verification requirement had been substantially complied with despite the fact that only two (2) out of the twenty-five (25) petitioners have signed the petition for review and the verification. In that case, we held that the two signatories were unquestionably real parties-in-interest, who undoubtedly had sufficient knowledge and belief to swear to the truth of the allegations in the Petition.

GR No. 178236

2008-06-27

OLIGARIO SALAS

NACHURA, J.

Besides, it has been our consistent holding that the ends of justice are better served when cases are determined on the merits - after all, parties are given full opportunity to ventilate their causes and defenses - rather than on technicality or some procedural imperfections.[18] Aboitiz's plea for the outright dismissal of the petition cannot, therefore, be sustained.

GR NO. 159422

2008-03-28

CHINESE YMCA OF MANILA DOWNTOWN v. REGISTER OF DEEDS

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

agents.[23] Thus, its power to sue and be sued in any court is lodged with the board of directors that exercises its corporate powers.[24] Physical acts, like the signing of documents, can be performed only by natural persons duly authorized for the purpose by corporate by-laws or by a specific act of the board of directors.[25] The purpose of requiring a verification is to secure an assurance that the allegations of the petition have been made in good faith, or are true and correct, not merely speculative.[26] On the other hand, the rule against forum shopping is rooted in the

GR NOS. 158786 & 158789

2007-10-19

TOYOTA MOTOR PHILS. CORP. WORKERS ASSOCIATION v. NLRC

VELASCO, JR., J.

The verification requirement is significant, as it is intended to secure an assurance that the allegations in the pleading are true and correct and not the product of the imagination or a matter of speculation.[30] This requirement is simply a condition affecting the form of pleadings, and noncompliance with the requirement does not necessarily render it fatally defective. Indeed, verification is only a formal and not a jurisdictional requirement.[31]

GR NO. 167471

2007-02-05

GLICERIA SARMIENTO v. EMERITA ZARATAN

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The purpose of requiring a verification is to secure an assurance that the allegations of the petition have been made in good faith, or are true and correct, not merely speculative. This requirement is simply a condition affecting the form of pleadings and non-compliance therewith does not necessarily render it fatally defective.[17] Perusal of the verification in question shows there was sufficient compliance with the requirements of the Rules and the alleged defects are not so material as to justify the dismissal of the petition in the Court of Appeals. The defects are mere typographical errors. There appears to be no intention to circumvent the need for proper verification and certification, which are intended to assure the truthfulness and correctness of the allegations in the petition and to discourage forum shopping.[18]

GR NO. 148852

2006-09-27

MARILYN VALDECANTOS v. PEOPLE

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

While the lack of certification against forum shopping is generally not cured by its submission after the filing of the petition, and the submission of a certificate against forum shopping is deemed obligatory, it is not jurisdictional.[20] Not being jurisdictional, the requirement has been relaxed under justifiable circumstances under the rule on substantial compliance.

GR NO. 164929

2006-04-10

ERNELIZA Z. MAMARIL v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

CARPIO MORALES, J.

The purpose of requiring a verification is to secure an assurance that the allegations of the petition have been made in good faith, or are true and correct, not merely speculative.[23] Non-compliance with such requirement does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective, hence, the court may order its correction if verification is lacking, or act on the pleading although it is not verified if the attending circumstances are such that strict compliance with the Rules may be dispensed with in order that the ends of justice may thereby be served.[24]

GR NO. 165821

2005-06-21

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

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

The general rule is that the certificate of non-forum shopping must be signed by all the plaintiffs in a case and the signature of only one of them is insufficient. However, the Court has also stressed 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 regarding the certification of non-forum shopping merely underscores its mandatory nature in that the certification cannot be altogether dispensed with or its requirements completely disregarded.[17] Thus, 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.[18]

GR NO. 160455

2005-05-09

ATENEO DE NAGA UNIVERSITY v. JOVITA S. MANALO

DAVIDE, JR., C.J.

As regards the verification requirement, this Court explained in Torres vs. Specialized Packaging Development Corporation[14] that such requirement is deemed substantially complied with when, as in that case, two out of 25 real parties-in-interest, who undoubtedly have sufficient knowledge and belief to swear to the truth of the allegations in the petition, signed the verification attached to it. Such verification is deemed sufficient assurance that the matters alleged in the petition have been made in good faith or are true and correct, not merely speculative.[15]

	GR No. 171282 2013-11-27	SKM ART CRAFT CORPORATION v. EFREN BAUCA VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The CA aptly noted that in Torres v. Specialized Packaging Development Corporation,[17] only two of the 25 petitioners therein signed the verification and certification against forum shopping. We said that the problem is not the lack of a verification, but the adequacy of one executed by only two of the 25 petitioners. These two signatories, we added, are unquestionably real parties in interest, who undoubtedly have sufficient knowledge and belief to swear to the truth of the allegations in the petition. This verification is enough assurance that the matters alleged therein have been made in good faith or are true and correct, not merely speculative. Hence, we ruled that the requirement of verification was substantially complied with. In Altres v. Empleo,[18] we also ruled that the verification requirement is deemed substantially complied with when 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, as in this case.
	GR No. 141809 2013-04-08	JOSEFINA F. INGLES v. ESTRELLA T. ESTRADA PEREZ, J.
Verily, the signatures of all of the Ingleses were not required to validly verify their certiorari petition. It suffices, according to Altres, that the verification was signed by at least one of the Ingleses who was competent to do so. In this case, the certiorari petition was verified by Josefina and Hector F. Ingles both of whom this Court finds competent to attest to the truth of the allegations of their petition, considering that they are unquestionably principal parties-in-interest to their certiorari petition.[137] Hence, their certiorari petition contains a substantially valid verification.
	GR No. 169292 2011-04-13	SPS. FRANCISCO DE GUZMAN v. CESAR OCHOA MENDOZA, J.
not be allowed to pursue simultaneous remedies in different fora, as this Q practice is detrimental to an orderly judicial procedure.[8]
	GR No. 174084 2010-08-25	SPIC N' SPAN SERVICES CORPORATION v. GLORIA PAJE BRION, J.
As we previously explained in Torres v. Specialized Packaging Development Corporation,[15] where only two of the 25 real parties-in-interest signed the verification, the verification by the two could be sufficient assurance that the allegations in the petition were made in good faith, are true and correct, and are not speculative. The lack of a verification in a pleading is only a formal defect, not a jurisdictional defect, and is not necessarily fatal to a case.[16] The primary reason for requiring a verification is simply to ensure that the allegations in the pleading are done in good faith, are true and correct, and are not mere speculations.[17]
	GR No. 167710 2009-06-05	PEOPLE v. JOVEN DE GRANO PERALTA, J.
The purpose of requiring a verification is to secure an assurance that the allegations in the petition have been made in good faith; or are true and correct, not merely speculative. This requirement is simply a condition affecting the form of pleadings, and noncompliance therewith does not necessarily render it fatally defective.[38] Truly, verification is only a formal, not a jurisdictional, requirement. Hence, it was sufficient that the private prosecutor signed the verification.
	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. 179127 2008-12-24	IN-N-OUT BURGER v. SEHWANI CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Moreover, the Court deems it proper not to focus on the supposed technical infirmities of Atty. Baranda's Verification. It must be borne in mind that the purpose of requiring a verification is to secure an assurance that the allegations of the petition has been made in good faith; or are true and correct, not merely speculative. This requirement is simply a condition affecting the form of pleadings, and non-compliance therewith does not necessarily render it fatally defective. Indeed, verification is only a formal, not a jurisdictional requirement. In the interest of substantial justice, strict observance of procedural rules may be dispensed with for compelling reasons.[37] The vital issues raised in the instant Petition on the jurisdiction of the IPO Director for Legal Affairs and the IPO Director General over trademark cases justify the liberal application of the rules, so that the Court may give the said Petition due course and resolve the same on the merits.
	GR No. 176405 2008-08-20	LEO WEE v. GEORGE DE CASTRO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Respondent deceased Jesus de Castro's failure to sign the Verification and Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping may be excused since he already executed an Affidavit[25] with respondent George de Castro that he had personal knowledge of the filing of Civil Case No. 1990. In Torres v. Specialized Packaging Development Corporation,[26] the Court ruled that the personal signing of the verification requirement was deemed substantially complied with when, as in the instant case, two out of 25 real parties-in-interest, who undoubtedly have sufficient knowledge and belief to swear to the truth of the allegations in the petition, signed the verification attached to it.
	GR No. 164624 2008-08-11	SARI-SARI GROUP OF COMPANIES v. PIGLAS KAMAO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The purpose of requiring a verification is to secure an assurance that the allegations of the petition have been made in good faith, or are true and correct, not merely speculative.[31] On the other hand, the rule against forum shopping is rooted in the principle that a party-litigant shall not be allowed to pursue simultaneous remedies in different fora, as this practice is detrimental to orderly judicial procedure.[32]
	GR No. 168111 2008-07-04	ANTONIO TAN v. AMELITO BALLENA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In Torres v. Specialized Packaging Development Corporation,[44] we ruled that the verification requirement had been substantially complied with despite the fact that only two (2) out of the twenty-five (25) petitioners have signed the petition for review and the verification. In that case, we held that the two signatories were unquestionably real parties-in-interest, who undoubtedly had sufficient knowledge and belief to swear to the truth of the allegations in the Petition.
	GR No. 178236 2008-06-27	OLIGARIO SALAS NACHURA, J.
Besides, it has been our consistent holding that the ends of justice are better served when cases are determined on the merits - after all, parties are given full opportunity to ventilate their causes and defenses - rather than on technicality or some procedural imperfections.[18] Aboitiz's plea for the outright dismissal of the petition cannot, therefore, be sustained.
	GR NO. 159422 2008-03-28	CHINESE YMCA OF MANILA DOWNTOWN v. REGISTER OF DEEDS AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
agents.[23] Thus, its power to sue and be sued in any court is lodged with the board of directors that exercises its corporate powers.[24] Physical acts, like the signing of documents, can be performed only by natural persons duly authorized for the purpose by corporate by-laws or by a specific act of the board of directors.[25] The purpose of requiring a verification is to secure an assurance that the allegations of the petition have been made in good faith, or are true and correct, not merely speculative.[26] On the other hand, the rule against forum shopping is rooted in the
	GR NOS. 158786 & 158789 2007-10-19	TOYOTA MOTOR PHILS. CORP. WORKERS ASSOCIATION v. NLRC VELASCO, JR., J.
The verification requirement is significant, as it is intended to secure an assurance that the allegations in the pleading are true and correct and not the product of the imagination or a matter of speculation.[30] This requirement is simply a condition affecting the form of pleadings, and noncompliance with the requirement does not necessarily render it fatally defective. Indeed, verification is only a formal and not a jurisdictional requirement.[31]
	GR NO. 167471 2007-02-05	GLICERIA SARMIENTO v. EMERITA ZARATAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The purpose of requiring a verification is to secure an assurance that the allegations of the petition have been made in good faith, or are true and correct, not merely speculative. This requirement is simply a condition affecting the form of pleadings and non-compliance therewith does not necessarily render it fatally defective.[17] Perusal of the verification in question shows there was sufficient compliance with the requirements of the Rules and the alleged defects are not so material as to justify the dismissal of the petition in the Court of Appeals. The defects are mere typographical errors. There appears to be no intention to circumvent the need for proper verification and certification, which are intended to assure the truthfulness and correctness of the allegations in the petition and to discourage forum shopping.[18]
	GR NO. 148852 2006-09-27	MARILYN VALDECANTOS v. PEOPLE AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
While the lack of certification against forum shopping is generally not cured by its submission after the filing of the petition, and the submission of a certificate against forum shopping is deemed obligatory, it is not jurisdictional.[20] Not being jurisdictional, the requirement has been relaxed under justifiable circumstances under the rule on substantial compliance.
	GR NO. 164929 2006-04-10	ERNELIZA Z. MAMARIL v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION CARPIO MORALES, J.
The purpose of requiring a verification is to secure an assurance that the allegations of the petition have been made in good faith, or are true and correct, not merely speculative.[23] Non-compliance with such requirement does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective, hence, the court may order its correction if verification is lacking, or act on the pleading although it is not verified if the attending circumstances are such that strict compliance with the Rules may be dispensed with in order that the ends of justice may thereby be served.[24]
	GR NO. 165821 2005-06-21	HEIRS OF AGAPITO T. OLARTE v. OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OF PHILIPPINES YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The general rule is that the certificate of non-forum shopping must be signed by all the plaintiffs in a case and the signature of only one of them is insufficient. However, the Court has also stressed 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 regarding the certification of non-forum shopping merely underscores its mandatory nature in that the certification cannot be altogether dispensed with or its requirements completely disregarded.[17] Thus, 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.[18]
	GR NO. 160455 2005-05-09	ATENEO DE NAGA UNIVERSITY v. JOVITA S. MANALO DAVIDE, JR., C.J.
As regards the verification requirement, this Court explained in Torres vs. Specialized Packaging Development Corporation[14] that such requirement is deemed substantially complied with when, as in that case, two out of 25 real parties-in-interest, who undoubtedly have sufficient knowledge and belief to swear to the truth of the allegations in the petition, signed the verification attached to it. Such verification is deemed sufficient assurance that the matters alleged in the petition have been made in good faith or are true and correct, not merely speculative.[15]

LORETA TORRES v. SPECIALIZED PACKAGING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION