This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2016-02-10 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Time and again, we have said that non-compliance with verification or a defect therein does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective.[46] Verification, like in most cases required by the rules of procedure, is a formal requirement, not jurisdictional.[47] It is mainly intended to secure an assurance that matters which are alleged are done in good faith or are true and correct and not of mere speculation.[48] Thus, when circumstances so warrant, "the court may simply order the correction of unverified pleadings or act on it and waive strict compliance with the rules in order that the ends of justice may thereby be served."[49] | |||||
|
2016-02-03 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Specifically with respect to certifications against forum-shopping, we have repeatedly held that "non-compliance therewith or a defect therein, unlike in verification, is generally not curable by its subsequent submission or correction thereof, unless there is a need to relax the Rule on the ground of 'substantial compliance' or presence of 'special circumstances or compelling reasons.'"[19] Taking the foregoing circumstances and considerations to mind, the Court is not inclined to relax the rules for the petitioner's benefit; it perceives no compelling reasons or circumstances to rule in his favor. Quite the contrary, the CA pronouncement ordering the dismissal of his Petition for Review is just, and thus should stand. | |||||