This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2005-02-28 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The same rule requires the pleader to submit a certificate of non-forum shopping to be executed by the plaintiff or principal party. Obviously, it is the plaintiff or principal party, and not the counsel whose professional services have been retained for a particular case, who is in the best position to know whether he or it actually filed or caused the filing of a petition in that case.[22] | |||||
|
2004-10-07 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| In sum, we find that the certification against forum shopping in CA-G.R. SP No. 60838 is fatally defective, not having been duly signed by both petitioners. This procedural flaw warrants the dismissal of the petition for certiorari. We have consistently held that the certification against forum shopping must be signed by the principal parties.[4] With respect to a corporation, the certification against forum shopping may be signed for and on its behalf, by a specifically authorized lawyer who has personal knowledge of the facts required to be disclosed in such document.[5] | |||||
|
2003-12-08 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The requirement regarding the need for a certification of non-forum shopping in cases filed before the CA and the corresponding sanction for non-compliance thereto are found in the then prevailing Revised Circular No. 28-91.[22] It provides that the petitioner himself must make the certification against forum shopping and a violation thereof shall be a cause for the summary dismissal of the multiple petition or complaint. The rationale for the rule of personal execution of the certification by the petitioner himself is that it is only the petitioner who has actual knowledge of whether or not he has initiated similar actions or proceedings in other courts or tribunals; even counsel of record may be unaware of such fact.[23] The Court has ruled that with respect to the contents of the certification, the rule on substantial compliance may be availed of. This is so because the requirement of strict compliance with the rule regarding the certification of non-forum shopping simply underscores its mandatory nature in that the certification cannot be altogether dispensed with or its requirements completely disregarded, but it does not thereby interdict substantial compliance with its provisions under justifiable circumstances.[24] | |||||
|
2003-11-18 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| The argument of substantial compliance deserves no merit, given the Court's ruling in Mendigorin v. Cabantog:[14] | |||||