Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ANTONIO DOCENA v. RICARDO P. LAPESURA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 156905 2007-09-05	ATHENA COMPUTERS v. WESNU A. REYES SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In Docena v. Lapesura,[10] we ruled that the certificate of non-forum
	GR NO. 157029 2005-12-15	JIMMY KENT RAMBUYON v. FIESTA BRANDS QUISUMBING, J.
In the cases of United Residents of Dominican Hill, Inc. v. Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems[16] and Docena v. Lapesura,[17] we held that the certification of non-forum shopping should be signed by all of the petitioners in a case, and that the signing by only one of them is insufficient.
	GR NO. 150859 2005-03-28	FLORENTINO GONZALES v. BALIKATAN KILUSANG BAYAN SA PANANALAPI QUISUMBING, J.
This contention is without merit. As repeatedly held by this Court, the certificate of non-forum shopping should be signed by all the petitioners or plaintiffs in a case, otherwise, it would be deemed insufficient. The attestation contained in the certification of non-forum shopping requires personal knowledge by the party executing it, and the lone signing petitioner could not be presumed to have personal knowledge of the filing or non-filing by his co-petitioners of any action or claim it. To merit the court's consideration, petitioners must show reasonable cause for failure to personally sign the certification.[10] But in the present case, the Motion for Reconsideration filed below by petitioners did not satisfactorily explain the failure of the other petitioners to sign the certification of non-forum shopping nor did it cure the said defect, hence the petition was appropriately and validly dismissed by the Court of Appeals.[11]
	GR No. 151136 2004-05-27	SPS. GAVINO C. GUDOY AND VIOLETA M. GUDOY v. JACINTA S. GUADALQUIVER QUISUMBING, J.
However, respondents maintain that the complaint is defective as to form because all the petitioners are required to sign the complaint's certification on non-forum shopping. Respondents cite the cases of United Residents of Dominican Hill, Inc. v. Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems[4] and Docena v. Lapesura, [5] where we held that the certification on non-forum shopping should be signed by all of the petitioners or plaintiffs in a case and that the signing by only one of them is insufficient.
	GR No. 141530 2003-03-18	REPUBLIC v. CA CORONA, J.
The retroactive application of A.M. 00-2-03-SC has, in fact, already been ordered by this Court in a number of recent cases, such as Systems Factors Corporation vs. NLRC, [22] Unity Fishing Development Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, [23] Docena et. al. vs. Lapesura, [24] Pfizer vs. Galan [25] and Universal Robina Corporation et. al. vs. Court of Appeals et. al. [26]