This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2012-01-16 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The filing of a certificate of non-forum shopping is mandatory so much so that non-compliance could only be tolerated by special circumstances and compelling reasons.[26] This Court has held that when there are several petitioners, all of them must execute and sign the certification against forum shopping; otherwise, those who did not sign will be dropped as parties to the case.[27] True, we held that in some cases, execution by only one of the petitioners on behalf of the other petitioners constitutes substantial compliance with the rule on the filing of a certificate of non-forum shopping on the ground of common interest or common cause of action or defense.[28] We, however, find that common interest is not present in the instant petition. To recall, Canoy's and Pigcaulan's complaints were consolidated because they both sought the same reliefs against the same respondents. This does not, however, mean that they share a common interest or defense. The evidence required to substantiate their claims may not be the same. A particular evidence which could sustain Canoy's action may not effectively serve as sufficient to support Pigcaulan's claim. | |||||