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.)