This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-02-28 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| However, the point raised by the respondents regarding the petitioner's defective jurat is correct. Indeed, A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC, dated February 19, 2008, calls for a current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the photograph and signature of the individual as competent evidence of identity. Nevertheless, we hasten to clarify that the defective jurat in the Verification/Certification of Non-Forum Shopping is not a fatal defect, as we held in In-N-Out Burger, Inc. v. Sehwani, Incorporated.[41] The verification is only a formal, not a jurisdictional, requirement that the Court may waive. | |||||
|
2009-12-04 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Assuming arguendo that Solomon did have the legal obligation to inform the Court in G.R. No. 182008 of the pendency of G.R. No. 181455-56, his failure to do so does not necessarily result in the dismissal of the former. Although the submission of a certificate against forum shopping is deemed obligatory, it is not jurisdictional.[56] Hence, in this case in which such a certification was in fact submitted - only, it was defective -- the Court may still refuse to dismiss and may, instead, give due course to the Petition in light of attendant exceptional circumstances.[57] | |||||