Mayuga v Atienza defendants were able to satisfactorily comply with the requirements for the

GR No 208197|Jan 10, 2018|Caguioa, J issuance of free patent. As Mayuga’s averment that she was not notified of
Digested by: Alexis A. Hiceta the application and hearings were not proved by sufficient evidence as it was
all bare and self-serving. An action for reconveyance and an action for
FACTS: declaration of nullity of the free patent cannot be pursued simultaneously.
1. Mayuga instituted a petition for cancellation and recall of free patent The former recognizes the certificate of title issued pursuant to the free
application and reconveyance against Atienza, represented by his heirs. patent as indefeasible while the latter does not. They may, however, be
pursued alternatively pursuant to Section 2, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court on
2. Mayuga alleged that Atienza, through manipulation and alternative causes of action or defenses. The action for declaration of nullity
misrepresentation, was able to secure free patents on the subject lots. That of the free patents issued in favor of the respondents must fail, as the CA
Mayuga was not notified of the application with public respondent correctly ruled.
Community Environment and Natural Resource Officer nor any notice of
hearings of proceedings as required by law, being a co-heir and party-in- Given the foregoing, the resolution of the procedural issues pertinent
interest. to the Petition has become superfluous. WHEREFORE, the Petition is
hereby DENIED for lack of merit. The Court of Appeals Decision dated
3. Defendants filed for a motion for Bill of Particulars as they could not make July 8, 2013 in CA-G.R. CV No. 95599 is hereby AFFIRMED.
an intelligent answer. Mayuga complied thus the defendants denied the
material allegations of the complaint and that the free patent titles have
already become indefeasible after the lapse of one year from its issuance in
1992. Furthermore, that they and their predecessors-in-interest have been in
open, public, continuous possession of the subject property for over 30
years.

4. Mayuga filed an amended complaint, impleading heirs of Atienza.

Defendants then filed for a motion to dismiss as the original petition failed to
state counsel’s IBP and P.T.R No. and the amended complaint for failure to
attach a verification and certification against forum shopping as it was Arceli
Mayuga who signed instead of Marilyn Mayuga, herein petitioner.

5. RTC denied MTD for lack of merit. The court also ruled in favor of the
petition as the free patent of defendant was tainted with fraud because it was
processed without Mayuga’s knowledge nor a notice of hearing of any
proceeding was sent to her.

6. CA reversed RTC’s decision for failure to append a certification against

non-forum shopping

ISSUE: Whether or not the failure of Mayuga to comply with the requirement
of certification of non-forum shopping should lead to outright dismissal of her
petition

HELD: No, it does not lead to the outright dismissal. The court affirmed the Gloria v Builders Savings and Loan Association
CA decision but did not dwell on the violation against the procedural rules as GR No. 202324|June 4, 2018|Del Castillo, J
they ruled based on the interest of substantial compliance as it was Digested by: Alexis A. Hiceta
signed in behalf of Mayuga. They still dismissed the complaint as the
 said property is the subject matter of the suit, the failure of the other
FACTS: 1. Spouses Juan and Conchita Gloria (Conchita) are registered co-owners to sign the verification and certification against forum
owners of a parcel of land in QC. Petitioner Maria Lourdes Gloria-Payduan shopping is not fatal, as the signing by only one or some of them
(Lourdes) is their daughter. constitutes substantial compliance with the rule.

2. On 1987, Juan passed away. Thereafter, Conchita and Lourdes filed In the case of Iglesia Ni Cristo v. Judge Ponferrada, we expounded on the
before the RTC a Second Amended Complaint against respondent Builders purpose and sufficiency of compliance with the verification and certification
Savings and Loan Association, Inc. (Builders Savings), et al for "declaration against forum shopping requirements. The issue in the present case is not
of null and void real estate mortgage, promissory note, cancellation of the lack of verification but the sufficiency of one executed by only one of
notation in the transfer certificate of title, and damages. (the] plaintiffs. The same liberality should likewise be applied to the
certification against forum shopping. The general rule is that the certification
3. Petitioners claimed that Biag duped them into surrendering TCT 35814 to must be signed by all plaintiffs in a case and the signature of only one of
him under the pretense that Biag would verify the title, which he claimed them is insufficient. However, the Court has also stressed in a number of
might have been fraudulently transferred to another on account of a fire that cases that the rules on forum shopping were designed to promote and
gutted the Quezon City Registry of Deeds; that Biag claimed that the title facilitate the orderly administration of justice and thus should not be
might need to be reconstituted; that Biag instead used the title to mortgage interpreted with such absolute literalness as to subvert its own ultimate and
the Kamuning property to respondent Builders Savings; that Conchita was legitimate objective. The rule of substantial compliance may be availed
fraudulently made to sign the subject loan and mortgage documents by Biag, of with respect to the contents of the certification. This is because the
who deceived Conchita into believing that it was actually Lourdes who requirement of strict compliance with the provisions merely underscores its
requested that these documents be signed; that the subject Mortgage and mandatory nature in that the certification cannot be altogether dispensed
Promissory Note contained the signature not only of Conchita, but of Juan, with or its requirements completely disregarded.
who was by then already long deceased, as mortgagor and co-maker; that at
the time the loan and mortgage documents were supposedly executed, WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The assailed March 13, 2012
Conchita was already sickly and senile, and could no longer leave her Decision and June 18, 2012 Resolution of the Comtof Appeals in CA-
house; that Biag and Builders Savings conspired in the execution of the G.R. CV No. 82774 are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The March 12, 2004
forged loan and mortgage documents. Order of the Quezon City Regional 224 in Civil Case No. Q-93-16621 is
REINSTATED.
4. RTC ruled in favor of Builders; however, reversed its ruling after MR was
filed by Conchita
Hubilla vs HSY Marketing Co et al under Novo Jeans
5. CA reversed RTC ruling. They discussed the second issue in this case GR No 207354|Jan 10, 2018|Leonen, J
that after a careful perusal of the record shows that plaintitfs-appellees' Digested by: Alexis A. Hiceta
Second Amended Complaint appears to have been accompanied with a
defective verification which was signed by Maria Lourdes only and not
Conchita, with no reasonable justification for the omission whatsoever. It was FACTS: 1. On May 2010 and June 2010, several Novo Jeans employees
likewise not accompanied by a certification against non-forum shopping with went to Raffy Tulfo's radio program (Aksyon sa Radyo Singko) to air their
no justification presented by plaintiffs-appellees. grievances against their employers for alleged labor violations.

ISSUE: Whether or not failure to verify and attach a certificate of non-forum 2. They were referred to DOLE Camanava Regional Office. These
shopping by co-owners in the complaint can lead to an outright dismissal employees claimed that on June 7, 2010, they were not allowed to enter the
Novo Jeans branches they were employed in.
HELD: No. The Supreme court said the supposed defective verification
occasioned by Conchita's failure to sign the amended complaint with its 3. They further averred that while Novo Jeans sent them a show cause letter
concomitant verification and certification against forum shopping, the Court the next day, they were in truth already dismissed from employment.
has repeatedly held that in a case involving co-owners of property where
Moreover, they sent a demand letter to amicably settle the case before the before the courts; thus, the annexes of petitioner, not being relevant or
DOLE but no settlement was reached. pertinent, need not be attached to their pleadings

4. They alleged that upon learning that the DOLE was not the proper forum ISSUE: Whether or not verification based on facts relayed to the affiant by
to address their grievances, they decided to file a notice of withdrawal and his clients is valid.
file their complaint with the LA.
HELD: No. The Supreme Court ruled that the rules on compliance with the
5. Novo Jeans claimed that these employees voluntarily severed their requirement of the verification and certification of non-forum shopping were
employment but that they filed complaints. They alleged that the employees' already sufficiently outlined in Altres v. Empleo, where this Court stated for
notice of withdrawal was not actually granted by the DOLE but that the the guidance of the bench and bar, the Court restates in capsule form the
employees nonetheless filed their complaints before the LA. jurisprudential pronouncements already reflected above respecting non-
compliance with the requirements on, or submission of defective, verification
6. LA dismissed the complaint. He found that other than the employees' bare and certification against forum shopping:
allegations that they were dismissed from June 6 to 9, 2010, they did not
present any other evidence showing that their employment was terminated 1) A distinction must be made between non-compliance with the
or that they were prevented from reporting for work. The LA likewise ruled requirement on or submission of defective verification, and non-
that the employees voluntarily severed their employment since the airing of compliance with the requirement on or submission of defective
their grievances on Raffy Tulfo's radio program "[was] enough reason for certification against forum shopping.
them not to report for work, simply because of a possible disciplinary action
by [Novo Jeans]. 2) As to verification, non-compliance therewith or a defect
therein does not necessarily render the pleading fatally
7. The NLRC reversed LA’s decision and found that the employees were defective. The court may order its submission or correction or
illegally dismissed. It ruled that the allegations of both parties "were act on the pleading if the attending circumstances are such that
unsubstantiated and thus [were] equipoised" and that "if doubt exists strict compliance with the Rule may be dispensed with in order that
between the evidence presented by the employer and that by the employee, the ends of justice may be served thereby.
the scales of justice must be tilted in favor of the latter.
3) Verification is deemed substantially complied with when one
8. CA reversed NLRC’s decision. They found that Novo Jeans' counsel, as who has ample knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations in
the affiant, substantially complied with the verification requirement even if his the complaint or petition signs the verification, and when matters
personal knowledge was based on facts relayed to him by his clients and on alleged in the petition have been made in good faith or are true and
authentic records since he was not privy to the antecedents of the case. correct.

9. Petitioners argued that respondents were unable to substantially comply 4) As to certification against forum shopping, non-compliance
with the verification requirement before the CA. They submit that therewith or a defect therein, unlike in verification, is generally
respondents' counsel would have been privy to the antecedents of the case not curable by its subsequent submission or correction
so as to have personal knowledge and not merely knowledge as relayed by thereof, unless there is a need to relax the Rule on the ground of
his clients. They add that respondents deliberately withheld the Annexes of "substantial compliance" or presence of "special circumstances or
the Position Paper of the Petitioners submitted to the Labor Arbiter; hence, compelling reasons".
said Position Paper cannot be considered authentic.
5) The certification against forum shopping must be signed by all
10. Novo Jeans argued that a defect in the verification will not necessarily the plaintiffs or petitioners in a case; otherwise, those who did not
cause the dismissal of the pleading and that they had sufficiently complied sign will be dropped as parties to the case. Under reasonable or
with the requirement when the affiant attested that the petition was based on justifiable circumstances, however, as when all the plaintiffs or
facts relayed by his clients and on authentic records. They also point out that petitioners share a common interest and invoke a common
only relevant and pertinent documents should be attached to their pleadings cause of action or defense, the signature of only one of them
 in the certification against forum shopping substantially reinstate petitioners to their former positions without loss of seniority
complies with the Rule. rights or other privileges.

6) Finally, the certification against forum shopping must be Colegio Medico-Farmaceutico De Filipinas, Inc v Lily Lim and all
executed by the party-pleader, not by his counsel. If, however, for persons claiming under her
reasonable or justifiable reasons, the party-pleader is unable to GR No 212034|July 2, 2018|Del Castillo, J
sign, he must execute a Special Power of Attorney designating his Digested by: Alexis A. Hiceta
counsel of record to sign on his behalf.
FACTS:
The policy behind the requirement of verification is to guard against the filing 1. Colegio Medico Farmaceutico de Filipinas, Inc. (petitioner) is the
of fraudulent pleadings. Litigants run the risk of perjury if they sign the registered owner of a building located in Sampaloc, Manila. They filed before
verification despite knowledge that the stated allegations are not true or are the MeTC Manila, a Complaint for Ejectment with Damages against
products of mere speculation: Verification is not an empty ritual or a respondent Lily Lim (respondent), the President/Officer-in-charge of St. John
meaningless formality. Its import must never be sacrificed in the name of Berchman School of Manila Foundation (St. John).
mere expedience or sheer caprice. For what is at stake is the matter of verity
attested by the sanctity of an oath to secure an assurance that the 2. Petitioner alleged, that in June 2005, it entered into a Contract of Lease
allegations in the pleading have been made in good faith, or are true and for the period June 2005 to May 2006 with respondent; that after expiration
correct and not merely speculative. of the lease period, petitioner, represented by its then President Del Castillo,
sent respondent another Contract of Lease for the period June 2006 to May
Thus, for verification to be valid, the affiant must have "ample knowledge to 2007 for her approval
swear to the truth of the allegations in the complaint or petition." Facts
relayed to the counsel by the client would be insufficient for counsel to swear 3. However, despite several follow-ups, respondent failed to return the
to the truth of the allegations in a pleading. Otherwise, counsel would be Contract of Lease; that during a board meeting in December 2007, petitioner
able to disclaim liability for any misrepresentation by the simple expediency informed respondent of the decision of the Board not to renew the Contract
of stating that he or she was merely relaying facts with which he or she had of Lease
no competency to attest to. For this reason, the Rules of Court require no
less than personal knowledge of the facts to sufficiently verify a 4. Del Castillo wrote a letter to respondent demanding the payment of her
pleading. Respondents' counsel, not having sufficient personal knowledge back rentals and utility bills and with a request to vacate the subject property
to attest to the allegations of the pleading, was not able to validly verify the on or before March 16, 2008; and that respondent refused to comply with the
facts as stated. Therefore, respondents' Petition for Certiorari before the demand.
Court of Appeals should have been considered as an unsigned pleading.
5. For her part, respondent alleged that in May 2003, St. John, represented
Respondents' certification of non-forum shopping is likewise defective. The by Jean Li Yao, entered into a 10-year Contract of Lease with petitioner; that
certification of non-forum shopping must be signed by the litigant, not his or on May 3, 2005, due to financial difficulties, the Board of Trustees of St.
her counsel. The litigant may, for justifiable reasons, execute a special John assigned the rights and interest of the school in her favor; that the
power of attorney to authorize his or her counsel to sign on his or her behalf. assignment of rights was with the knowledge and approval of petitioner; that
In this instance, the verification and certification against forum shopping was to ensure advance payment of the rentals, petitioner persuaded her to
contained in one document and was signed by respondents' counsel, Atty. execute a one-year Contract of Lease for the period of June 2005 to May
Daclan. 2006, with advance payment of rentals for the said period; that the said
contract was executed with no intention of amending, repealing, or
WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The February 25, 2013 shortening the original 10-year lease; that she occupied the subject property
Decision and May 30, 2013 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA- even after May 2006 without any objection from petitioner because, as
G.R. SP No. 126522 are SET ASIDE. Respondents are DIRECTED to agreed by the parties, the term of the lease would continue until the year
2013; that she sent several letters to petitioner for the immediate repairs of
the library, the toilets of the school building, and the basketball court; and
that she suspended the payment of the rentals due to the refusal of 1. Lourdes C. Fernandez and sister Cecilia Siapno (petitioners) filed a
petitioner to act on all her letters. Complaint for Ejectment against respondent Norma Villegas (Norma),
seeking to recover possession of a parcel of land situated in Dagupan City.
6. MeTC dismissed complaint for lack of demand letter.
2. In their complaint, petitioner averred that they are the registered owners of
7. RTC reversed MeTC’s decision as the demand letter was done by the subject property.
President Del Castillo in the usual course of business and was ratified by the
Board meeting. 3. Respondents, on the other hand, answered that the complaint stated no
cause of action, considering that petitioner has no standing to question their
8. CA reversed RTC’s decision. Failure by Del Castillo to attach the board possession of the subject property as she had already donated her portion in
resolution to the complaint was fatally defective favor of her sister Cecilia. Respondents further asserted that there was no
compliance with the required conciliation and mediation under the
ISSUE: Whether or not nonattachment of the board resolution to the Katarungang Pambarangay Law as no Certificate to File Action was
complaint can lead to dismissal of case attached to the complaint thereby rendering the complaint dismissible.

HELD: No, it does not. The Supreme Court ruled that a corporation 4. MTCC found that respondents failed to impugn the validity of petitioner’s
exercises its powers and transacts its business through its board of directors ownership over the subject property. As owners, petitioner have the right to
or trustees. Accordingly, unless authorized by the board of directors or enjoy the use and receive the fruits from the said property, as well as to
trustees, corporate officers and agents cannot exercise any corporate power exclude one from its enjoyment.
pertaining to the corporation. A board resolution expressly authorizing the
officers and agents is therefore required. However, in filing a suit, 5. RTC reversed MTCC’s decision and ordered the dismissal of petitioner’s
jurisprudence has allowed the president of a corporation to sign the complaint based on the following grounds: (a) there was no compliance with
verification and the certification of non-forum shopping even without a board the mandatory conciliation and mediation process; and (b) respondents are
resolution as said officer is presumed to have sufficient knowledge to swear builders in good faith and cannot be summarily ejected from the subject
to the truth of the allegations stated in the complaint or petition. In view of the property without compliance with the provisions of the Civil Code.
foregoing jurisprudential exception, the CA gravely erred in dismissing the
Complaint on the mere failure of petitioner to present a copy of the Board 6. Petitioners appealed to CA. Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeal
Resolution dated May 13, 2008. With or without the said Board Resolution, on the grounds that: (a) Cecilia failed to personally verify the petition. In their
Del Castillo, as the President of petitioner, was authorized to sign the comment, petitioners maintained that Lourdes, as co-owner of the subject
verification and the certification of non-forum shopping. property, has the right to file an ejectment case by herself, without joining her
co-owner, Cecilia, as provided under Article 487 of the Civil Code. Moreover,
WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby GRANTED. The assailed June 13, Lourdes was specially authorized by Imelda to file the CA petition.
2013 Decision and the April 7, 2014 Resolution of the Court of Appeals
in CA-GR. SP No. 114856 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The 7. CA dismissed complaint, holding that the verification and certification
Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 11, dated May against forum shopping attached to the CA petition was defective since it
13, 2010 is hereby REINSTATED and AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION was signed only by Lourdes, one of the plaintiffs in the case, in violation of
that the amount of reasonable compensation for the use of the subject Section 5,31 Rule 7 of the Rules of Court which requires all the plaintiffs to
property be increased to 1155,000.00 as stipulated in the Contract of sign the same. There was also no showing that Lourdes was authorized by
Lease. her co-plaintiff, Cecilia, to represent the latter and to sign the said
Fernandez v Villegas certification, and neither did the submission of the special powers of attorney
GR No 200191|August 20, 2014|Perlas-Bernabe, J. of Cecilia and Imelda to that effect constitute substantial compliance with the
Digested by: Alexis A. Hiceta rules.

ISSUE: Whether or not a defective verification and certification against forum

FACTS: shopping attached to the CA petition can lead to dismissal of case
 As to #3 - It is undisputed that Lourdes is not only a resident of the subject
HELD: No. The Court finds that the CA committed reversible error in property but is a co- owner thereof together with her co-plaintiff/sister,
dismissing the CA petition due to a defective verification and certification Cecilia. As such, she is "one who has ample knowledge to swear to the truth
against forum shopping. of the allegations in the x xx [CA] petition" and is therefore qualified to "sign x
xx the verification". Besides, it is settled that the verification of a
The Court laid down the following guidelines with respect to noncompliance pleading is only a formal, not a jurisdictional requirement intended to
with the requirements on or submission of a defective verification and secure the assurance that the matters alleged in a pleading are true
certification against forum shopping, viz.: and correct. Therefore, the courts may simply order the correction of the
1) A distinction must be made between non-compliance with the requirement pleadings or act on them and waive strict compliance with the rules, as in
on or submission of defective verification, and noncompliance with the this case.
requirement on or submission of defective certification against forum
shopping. As to #5 - There was also substantial compliance with the certification
against forum shopping requirement, notwithstanding the fact that only
2) As to verification, non-compliance therewith or a defect therein does not Lourdes signed the same. Court ruled that Where the plaintiffs or petitioners
necessarily render the pleading fatally defective. The court may order its share a common interest and invoke a common cause of action or defense -
submission or correction or act on the pleading if the attending the rule requiring all such plaintiffs or petitioners to sign the certification
circumstances are such that strict compliance with the Rule may be against forum shopping may be relaxed. Similar to the rules on verification,
dispensed with in order that the ends of justice may be served thereby. the rules on forum shopping are designed to promote and facilitate the
orderly administration of justice; hence, it should not be interpreted with such
3) Verification is deemed substantially complied with when one who has absolute literalness as to subvert its own ultimate and legitimate objectives.
ample knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations in the complaint or The requirement of strict compliance with the provisions on certification
petition signs the verification, and when matters alleged in the petition have against forum shopping merely underscores its mandatory nature to the
been made in good faith or are true and correct. effect that the certification cannot altogether be dispensed with or its
requirements completely disregarded. It does not prohibit substantial
4) As to certification against forum shopping, non-compliance therewith or a compliance with the rules under justifiable circumstances.
defect therein, unlike in verification, is generally not curable by its
subsequent submission or correction thereof, unless there is a need to relax WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Resolutions dated
the Rule on the ground of "substantial compliance" or presence of "special January 22, 2011 and December 28, 2011 of the Court of Appeals (CA)
circumstances or compelling reasons." in CA-G.R. SP No. 116143 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Accordingly, the case is REINSTATED and REMANDED to the CA for
5) The certification against forum shopping must be signed by all the proper and immediate disposition.
plaintiffs or petitioners in a case; otherwise, those who did not sign will be
dropped as parties to the case. Under reasonable or justifiable
circumstances, however, as when all the plaintiffs or petitioners share a
common interest and invoke a common cause of action or defense, the
signature of only one of them in the certification against forum shopping
substantially complies with the Rule.

6) Finally, the certification against forum shopping must be executed by the

party-pleader, not by his counsel. If, however, for reasonable or justifiable
reasons, the party-pleader is unable to sign, he must execute a Special
Power of Attorney designating his counsel of record to sign on his behalf.37
(Emphases supplied)