Wednesday, December 11, 2013

Tomas T. Teodoro et al. vs. Continental Cement Corporation

G.R. No. 165355, September 26, 2012

(Verification, Certification Against Forum Shopping, Remedial Law)


The substantial portion of this case is about mining disputes, while the technical portion of this case is about the rules on Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping. We will discuss the latter issue.

The respondent argued that the petition should have been dismissed outright because of a defect in the verification and certification against forum shopping. The defect, according to the respondent, was that the verification and certification was signed not by the petitioner himself, as required by the rules, but by his lawyer. Petitioner, on the other hand, argued that this was justified because he is residing in the United States of America and therefore has authorized his lawyer to execute on his behalf the verification and certification, but such written authorization still has to be sent by courier.

In resolving the case in respondent's favor, the Supreme Court cited Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court which mandates that it should be the principal party who should sign the certification against forum shopping. The reason for this rule is that it is the party, and not the counsel, who is in the best position to know if he actually filed or caused the filing of a petition. The rules may however be relaxed in favor of substantial justice based on the following guidelines already stated in Altres vs. Empleo (G.R. No. 180986, December 10, 2008):

1. There is a difference between defective verification and defective certification against forum shopping.

2. A defective verification is not all the time fatal to the petition. It may corrected if allowed by the court in order to serve the ends of justice.

3. Verification, even if not executed by the principal party, is deemed complied with when the signatory can swear to the truth of the allegations in the petition or complaint, and when matters alleged therein have been made in good faith or are true and correct.

4. Meanwhile, a defective certification against non-forum shopping generally cannot be cured unless the rules must be relaxed because of "substantial compliance" or "special circumstances or compelling reasons."

5. Plaintiffs or petitioners who did not sign the certification against forum shopping will be dropped as parties to the case, unless there are reasonable or justifiable circumstances to rule otherwise, as when all the plaintiffs or petitioners share a common interest and invoke a common cause of action or defense, in that case only one of them may sign the certification.

6. If the party-pleader is unable to sign the certification against forum shopping, he must execute a Special Power of Attorney designating his counsel of record to sign on his behalf, but this may only be allowed for justifiable reasons.

In this case, petitioner failed to submit such authorization.

(You may copy, distribute or modify this case digest in any medium provided you acknowledge barops.blogspot.com. Thank you.)

Disclaimer

The articles in this blog are the writer's own opinion, views or report of facts, AND SHOULD NOT SUBSTITUTE for official documents or issuances, or the advice of an independent and competent legal counsel. We do not warrant the accuracy and suitability of these articles for whatever purpose you may have in copying them. Thank you.
Add to Technorati Favorites

Privacy Policy

This privacy policy tells you how we use personal information collected at this site. Please read this privacy policy before using the site or submitting any personal information. By using the site, you accept the practices described here.

Collection of Information
We collect personally identifiable information, like names, email addresses, etc., when voluntarily submitted by our visitors. The information you provide is used to fulfill your specific request, unless you give us permission to use it in another manner, for example, to add you to one of our mailing lists.

Cookie/Tracking Technology
Our site may use cookies and tracking technology which are useful for gathering information such as browser type and operating system, tracking the number of visitors to the site, and understanding how visitors use the Site. Personal information cannot be collected via cookies and other tracking technology, however, if you previously provided personally identifiable information, cookies may be tied to such information. Third parties such as our advertisers may also use cookies to collect information in the course of serving ads to you. Most web browsers automatically accept cookies, but you can usually modify your browser setting to decline cookies if you prefer.

Distribution of Information
We do not share your personally identifiable information to any third party for marketing purposes. However, we may share information with governmental agencies or other companies assisting us in fraud prevention or investigation. We may do so when: (1) permitted or required by law; or, (2) trying to protect against or prevent actual or potential fraud or unauthorized transactions; or, (3) investigating fraud which has already taken place.

Commitment to Data Security
Your personally identifiable information is kept secure. Only authorized staff of this site (who have agreed to keep information secure and confidential) have access to this information. All emails and newsletters from this site allow you to opt out of further mailings.

Privacy Contact Information
If you have any questions, concerns, or comments about our privacy policy you may contact us by email at barops@gmail.com.

We reserve the right to make changes to this policy. You are encouraged to review the privacy policy whenever you visit the site to make sure that you understand how any personal information you provide will be used.