Lawyerly

GR No. 198172

2016-01-25

REGULUS DEVELOPMENT v. ANTONIO DELA CRUZ

BRION, J.

Nevertheless, a defect in the verification does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective. The court may order its submission or correction, or act on the pleading if the attending circumstances are such that strict compliance with the Rule may be dispensed with in order that the ends of justice may be served.[35]

GR No. 201234

2014-03-17

HEIRS OF AMADA A. ZAULDA v. ISAAC Z. ZAULDA

MENDOZA, J.

Even assuming that a photocopy of competent evidence of identity was indeed required, non-attachment thereof would not render the petition fatally defective. It has been consistently held[17] that verification is merely a formal, not jurisdictional, requirement, affecting merely the form of the pleading such that non-compliance therewith does not render the pleading fatally defective. It is simply intended to provide an assurance that the allegations are true and correct and not a product of the imagination or a matter of speculation, and that the pleading is filed in good faith. The court may in fact order the correction of the pleading if verification is lacking or it may act on the pleading although it may not have been verified, where it is made evident that strict compliance with the rules may be dispensed so that the ends of justice may be served. The Court, in Altres v. Empleo,[18] issued guidelines based on previous jurisprudential pronouncements respecting non-compliance with the requirements on, or submission of a defective, verification as well as on certification against forum shopping, as follows: x x x

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.

[126] Altres v. Empleo, G.R. No. 180986, 10 December 2008, 573 SCRA 583.

GR No. 165355

2012-09-26

TOMAS T. TEODORO v. CONTINENTAL CEMENT CORPORATION

BRION, J.

In Altres v. Empleo,[25] the Court issued the following guidelines regarding non-compliance with the requirements on, or submission of a defective, verification and certification against forum shopping: 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. 165769

2011-12-12

EDITO PAGADORA v. JULIETA S. ILAO

PERALTA, J.

Verification is merely a formal, not jurisdictional, requirement, affecting merely the form of the pleading such that non-compliance therewith does not render the pleading fatally defective. It is simply intended to provide an assurance that the allegations are true and correct and not a product of the imagination or a matter of speculation, and that the pleading is filed in good faith. The court may in fact order the correction of the pleading if verification is lacking or it may act on the pleading although it may not have been verified, where it is made evident that strict compliance with the rules may be dispensed so that the ends of justice may be served. [48] The Court en banc, in Altres v. Empleo, [49] has issued guidelines based on previous jurisprudential pronouncements respecting non-compliance with the requirements on, or submission of a defective, verification as well as on certification against forum shopping, as follows: 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. 154113

2011-12-07

EDEN GLADYS ABARIA v. NLRC

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

The Court has laid down the rule in Altres v. Empleo [35] as culled from "jurisprudential pronouncements", that the certification against forum shopping must be signed by all the plaintiffs or petitioners in a case; otherwise, those who did not sign will be dropped as parties to the case. Under reasonable or justifiable circumstances, however, as when all the plaintiffs or petitioners share a common interest and invoke a common cause of action or defense, the signature of only one of them in the certification against forum shopping substantially complies with the Rule.

GR No. 165338

2011-11-28

MAKILITO B. MAHINAY v. IRENEO LEE GAKO

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Nonetheless, the Rules[84] and jurisprudence on the matter have it that the court may allow such deficiency to be remedied. In Altres v. Empleo,[85] this Court pronounced for the guidance of the bench and the bar that "non-compliance x x x or a defect [in the verification] does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective. The court may order its submission or correction or act on the pleading if the attending circumstances are such that strict compliance with the Rule may be dispensed with in order that the needs of justice may be served thereby."

GR No. 186045

2011-02-02

MACTAN-CEBU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY v. HEIRS OF ESTANISLAO MIÑOZA

PERALTA, J.

In the case of Altres v. Empleo,[13] this Court clarified, among other things, that as to verification, non-compliance therewith or a defect therein does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective. The court may order its submission or correction, or act on the pleading if the attending circumstances are such that strict compliance with the Rule may be dispensed with in order that the ends of justice may be served thereby. Further, a verification 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.[14]

GR No. 181051

2010-07-05

MANDAUE GALLEON TRADE v. BIENVENIDO ISIDTO

NACHURA, J.

In Altres v. Empleo,[15] the Court en banc issued guidelines based on jurisprudential pronouncements respecting non-compliance with the requirements on, or submission of defective, verification and certification against forum shopping. The portions thereof which are pertinent to the instant case are the following: 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. 184193

2010-03-29

SEGUNDO G. DIMARANAN v. HEIRS OF SPS. HERMOGENES ARAYATA AND FLAVIANA ARAYATA

PEREZ, J.

This Court had repeatedly clarified the distinction between a question of law and a question of fact. A question of law exists when the doubt or controversy concerns the correct application of law or jurisprudence to a certain set of facts; or when the issue does not call for an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented, the truth or falsehood of facts being admitted. A question of fact, on the other hand, exists when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of facts or when the query invites calibration of the whole evidence considering mainly the credibility of the witnesses, the existence and relevance of specific surrounding circumstances, as well as their relation to each other and to the whole, and the probability of the situation.[29]

GR No. 164205

2009-09-03

OLDARICO S. TRAVEÑO v. BOBONGON BANANA GROWERS MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE

CARPIO MORALES, J.

Respecting the appellate court's dismissal of petitioners' appeal due to the failure of some of them to sign the therein accompanying verification and certification against forum-shopping, the Court's guidelines for the bench and bar in Altres v. Empleo,[20] which were culled "from jurisprudential pronouncements," are instructive: For the guidance of the bench and bar, the Court restates in capsule form the jurisprudential pronouncements already reflected above respecting non-compliance with the requirements on, or submission of defective, verification and certification against forum shopping:

GR No. 162836

2009-07-30

CEFERINA ARGALLON-JOCSON v. CA

CARPIO, J.

Furthermore, only Tuising signed the Verification and Certification for Non-Forum Shopping. Jocson did not sign the Verification and Certification. Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure requires the petition for review on certiorari to be verified.[18] A pleading required to be verified which lacks proper verification shall be treated as an unsigned pleading.[19] Although Tuising belatedly filed on 24 September 2004 a "Special Power of Attorney" allegedly signed by Jocson and authorizing Tuising to file the petition for review and to verify and to certify the petition, no explanation was given by Tuising why the Special Power of Attorney was belatedly filed four months after the petition for review was filed on 12 May 2004. The lack of a certification against forum shopping or a defective certification is generally not curable by its subsequent submission or correction, unless there is a need to relax the rule under special circumstances or for compelling reasons.[20] We find no compelling reason for a liberal application of the rules especially in this case where the petitioner who did not sign the verification and certification for non-forum shopping already filed with the trial court a Motion for Issuance of Alias Writ of Execution. By filing the Motion for Issuance of Alias Writ of Execution, Jocson was in effect abiding by the Court of Appeals' Decision dated 16 January 2004.

	GR No. 198172 2016-01-25	REGULUS DEVELOPMENT v. ANTONIO DELA CRUZ BRION, J.
Nevertheless, a defect in the verification does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective. The court may order its submission or correction, or act on the pleading if the attending circumstances are such that strict compliance with the Rule may be dispensed with in order that the ends of justice may be served.[35]
	GR No. 201234 2014-03-17	HEIRS OF AMADA A. ZAULDA v. ISAAC Z. ZAULDA MENDOZA, J.
Even assuming that a photocopy of competent evidence of identity was indeed required, non-attachment thereof would not render the petition fatally defective. It has been consistently held[17] that verification is merely a formal, not jurisdictional, requirement, affecting merely the form of the pleading such that non-compliance therewith does not render the pleading fatally defective. It is simply intended to provide an assurance that the allegations are true and correct and not a product of the imagination or a matter of speculation, and that the pleading is filed in good faith. The court may in fact order the correction of the pleading if verification is lacking or it may act on the pleading although it may not have been verified, where it is made evident that strict compliance with the rules may be dispensed so that the ends of justice may be served. The Court, in Altres v. Empleo,[18] issued guidelines based on previous jurisprudential pronouncements respecting non-compliance with the requirements on, or submission of a defective, verification as well as on certification against forum shopping, as follows: x x x
	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.
[126] Altres v. Empleo, G.R. No. 180986, 10 December 2008, 573 SCRA 583.
	GR No. 165355 2012-09-26	TOMAS T. TEODORO v. CONTINENTAL CEMENT CORPORATION BRION, J.
In Altres v. Empleo,[25] the Court issued the following guidelines regarding non-compliance with the requirements on, or submission of a defective, verification and certification against forum shopping: 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. 165769 2011-12-12	EDITO PAGADORA v. JULIETA S. ILAO PERALTA, J.
Verification is merely a formal, not jurisdictional, requirement, affecting merely the form of the pleading such that non-compliance therewith does not render the pleading fatally defective. It is simply intended to provide an assurance that the allegations are true and correct and not a product of the imagination or a matter of speculation, and that the pleading is filed in good faith. The court may in fact order the correction of the pleading if verification is lacking or it may act on the pleading although it may not have been verified, where it is made evident that strict compliance with the rules may be dispensed so that the ends of justice may be served. [48] The Court en banc, in Altres v. Empleo, [49] has issued guidelines based on previous jurisprudential pronouncements respecting non-compliance with the requirements on, or submission of a defective, verification as well as on certification against forum shopping, as follows: 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. 154113 2011-12-07	EDEN GLADYS ABARIA v. NLRC VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The Court has laid down the rule in Altres v. Empleo [35] as culled from "jurisprudential pronouncements", that the certification against forum shopping must be signed by all the plaintiffs or petitioners in a case; otherwise, those who did not sign will be dropped as parties to the case. Under reasonable or justifiable circumstances, however, as when all the plaintiffs or petitioners share a common interest and invoke a common cause of action or defense, the signature of only one of them in the certification against forum shopping substantially complies with the Rule.
	GR No. 165338 2011-11-28	MAKILITO B. MAHINAY v. IRENEO LEE GAKO DEL CASTILLO, J.
Nonetheless, the Rules[84] and jurisprudence on the matter have it that the court may allow such deficiency to be remedied. In Altres v. Empleo,[85] this Court pronounced for the guidance of the bench and the bar that "non-compliance x x x or a defect [in the verification] does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective. The court may order its submission or correction or act on the pleading if the attending circumstances are such that strict compliance with the Rule may be dispensed with in order that the needs of justice may be served thereby."
	GR No. 186045 2011-02-02	MACTAN-CEBU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY v. HEIRS OF ESTANISLAO MIÑOZA PERALTA, J.
In the case of Altres v. Empleo,[13] this Court clarified, among other things, that as to verification, non-compliance therewith or a defect therein does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective. The court may order its submission or correction, or act on the pleading if the attending circumstances are such that strict compliance with the Rule may be dispensed with in order that the ends of justice may be served thereby. Further, a verification 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.[14]
	GR No. 181051 2010-07-05	MANDAUE GALLEON TRADE v. BIENVENIDO ISIDTO NACHURA, J.
In Altres v. Empleo,[15] the Court en banc issued guidelines based on jurisprudential pronouncements respecting non-compliance with the requirements on, or submission of defective, verification and certification against forum shopping. The portions thereof which are pertinent to the instant case are the following: 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. 184193 2010-03-29	SEGUNDO G. DIMARANAN v. HEIRS OF SPS. HERMOGENES ARAYATA AND FLAVIANA ARAYATA PEREZ, J.
This Court had repeatedly clarified the distinction between a question of law and a question of fact. A question of law exists when the doubt or controversy concerns the correct application of law or jurisprudence to a certain set of facts; or when the issue does not call for an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented, the truth or falsehood of facts being admitted. A question of fact, on the other hand, exists when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of facts or when the query invites calibration of the whole evidence considering mainly the credibility of the witnesses, the existence and relevance of specific surrounding circumstances, as well as their relation to each other and to the whole, and the probability of the situation.[29]
	GR No. 164205 2009-09-03	OLDARICO S. TRAVEÑO v. BOBONGON BANANA GROWERS MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE CARPIO MORALES, J.
Respecting the appellate court's dismissal of petitioners' appeal due to the failure of some of them to sign the therein accompanying verification and certification against forum-shopping, the Court's guidelines for the bench and bar in Altres v. Empleo,[20] which were culled "from jurisprudential pronouncements," are instructive: For the guidance of the bench and bar, the Court restates in capsule form the jurisprudential pronouncements already reflected above respecting non-compliance with the requirements on, or submission of defective, verification and certification against forum shopping:
	GR No. 162836 2009-07-30	CEFERINA ARGALLON-JOCSON v. CA CARPIO, J.
Furthermore, only Tuising signed the Verification and Certification for Non-Forum Shopping. Jocson did not sign the Verification and Certification. Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure requires the petition for review on certiorari to be verified.[18] A pleading required to be verified which lacks proper verification shall be treated as an unsigned pleading.[19] Although Tuising belatedly filed on 24 September 2004 a "Special Power of Attorney" allegedly signed by Jocson and authorizing Tuising to file the petition for review and to verify and to certify the petition, no explanation was given by Tuising why the Special Power of Attorney was belatedly filed four months after the petition for review was filed on 12 May 2004. The lack of a certification against forum shopping or a defective certification is generally not curable by its subsequent submission or correction, unless there is a need to relax the rule under special circumstances or for compelling reasons.[20] We find no compelling reason for a liberal application of the rules especially in this case where the petitioner who did not sign the verification and certification for non-forum shopping already filed with the trial court a Motion for Issuance of Alias Writ of Execution. By filing the Motion for Issuance of Alias Writ of Execution, Jocson was in effect abiding by the Court of Appeals' Decision dated 16 January 2004.

NORBERTO ALTRES v. CAMILO G. EMPLEO