Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=83334:57378&catid=1586&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 02:00:18+00:00

Document:
LOURDES C. FERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. NORMA VILLEGAS AND ANY PERSON ACTING IN HER BEHALF INCLUDING HER FAMILY, Respondents.
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari1 are the Resolutions dated June 22, 20112 and December 28, 20113 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 116143 which dismissed the petition for review under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court4 (CA petition) due to defective verification and certification against forum shopping.
On August 21, 2008, petitioner Lourdes C. Fernandez (Lourdes) and her sister, Cecilia Siapno (Cecilia), represented by her attorney-in-fact, Imelda S. Slater (Imelda), filed a Complaint for Ejectment5 before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 1, Dagupan City (MTCC), docketed as Civil Case No. 15980, against respondent Norma Villegas (Norma) and any person acting in her behalf including her family (respondents), seeking to recover possession of a parcel of land situated in Guilig Street, Dagupan City covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 191706 (subject property).
For their part, respondents, in their Answer,11 averred that the complaint stated no cause of action, considering that Lourdes has no standing to question their possession of the subject property as she had already donated her portion in favor of Cecilia,12 adding too that the latter is bound by her declaration that “the house and lot belong[s] to Eddie,” who is Norma’s late husband.13 Respondents further asserted that there was no compliance with the required conciliation and mediation under the Katarungang Pambarangay Law14 as no Certificate to File Action was attached to the complaint,15 thereby rendering the complaint dismissible.
Dissatisfied with the MTCC’s ruling, respondents filed an appeal19 before the Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City (RTC), Branch 40, docketed as Civil Case No. 2009-0224-D.
Aggrieved, plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration24 which was denied by the RTC, Branch 4425 in a Resolution26 dated August 18, 2010, prompting the filing of the CA petition.
At odds with the CA’s resolution, plaintiffs sought reconsideration35 but the same was denied in a Resolution36 dated December 28, 2011, hence, the instant petition filed by Lourdes alone.
The primordial issue in this case is whether or not the CA erred in dismissing outright the CA petition due to a defective verification and certification against forum shopping attached to the CA petition.
The present petition has merit.
Applying these guidelines to the case at bar, particularly, those stated in paragraphs 3 and 5 highlighted above, the Court finds that the CA committed reversible error in dismissing the CA petition due to a defective verification and certification against forum shopping.
It is undisputed that Lourdes is not only a resident of the subject property but is a co-owner thereof together with her co-plaintiff/sister, Cecilia. As such, she is “one who has ample knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations in the x x x [CA] petition” and is therefore qualified to “sign x x x the verification” attached thereto in view of paragraph 3 of the above-said guidelines.
Besides, it is settled that the verification of a pleading is only a formal, not a jurisdictional requirement intended to secure the assurance that the matters alleged in a pleading are true and correct. Therefore, the courts may simply order the correction of the pleadings or act on them and waive strict compliance with the rules,42 as in this case.
Following paragraph 5 of the guidelines as aforestated, there was also substantial compliance with the certification against forum shopping requirement, notwithstanding the fact that only Lourdes signed the same.
It has been held that under reasonable or justifiable circumstances – as in this case where the plaintiffs or petitioners share a common interest and invoke a common cause of action or defense – the rule requiring all such plaintiffs or petitioners to sign the certification against forum shopping may be relaxed.43 Consequently, the CA erred in dismissing the petition on this score.
Similar to the rules on verification, the rules on forum shopping are designed to promote and facilitate the orderly administration of justice; hence, it should not be interpreted with such absolute literalness as to subvert its own ultimate and legitimate objectives. The requirement of strict compliance with the provisions on certification against forum shopping merely underscores its mandatory nature to the effect that the certification cannot altogether be dispensed with or its requirements completely disregarded. It does not prohibit substantial compliance with the rules under justifiable circumstances,44 as also in this case.
As there was substantial compliance with the above-discussed procedural requirements at the onset, plaintiffs’ subsequent failure to file an amended verification and certification, as directed by the October 11, 2010 CA Resolution, should not have warranted the dismissal of the CA petition.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Resolutions dated January 22, 2011 and December 28, 2011 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 116143 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the case is REINSTATED and REMANDED to the CA for proper and immediate disposition.
2 Id. at 40-43. Penned by Associate Justice Agnes Reyes-Carpio, with Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla, concurring.
9 Spelled as “Pogo” in some parts of the records.
10Rollo, p. 124. See also id. at 62.
15Rollo, p. 73. Citing the case of Ledesma v. CA, July 23, 1992, 211 SCRA 753.
16 Id. at 123-129. Penned by Judge Junius F. Dalaten.
20 Id. at 148-156. Penned by Judge Robert O. Rudio.
25 The case was re-raffled to another Court, i.e., RTC, Branch 44, in an Order dated July 26, 2010; id. at 165.
26 Id. at 164-167. Penned by Judge Genoveva Coching-Maramba.
31 SEC. 5. Certification against forum shopping. – The plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath in the complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn certification annexed thereto and simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he has not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof; and (c) if he should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.
Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be curable by mere amendment of the complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon motion and after hearing. x x x.
37Ingles v. Estrada, G.R. Nos. 141809, 147186, and 173641, April 8, 2013, 695 SCRA 285, 317-319, citing Altres v. Empleo, 594 Phil. 246, 261-262 (2008).
38Mendoza v. Coronel, G.R. No. 156402, February 13, 2006, 482 SCRA 353, 358, citing Tolentino, Arturo M., Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil Code of the Philippines, Vol. II (1992), further citing Sering v. Plazo, 248 Phil. 315 (1988).
39 See Iglesia ni Cristo v. Judge Ponferrada, 536 Phil. 705, 719-721 (2006); Calo v. Villanueva, G.R. No. 153756, January 30, 2006, 480 SCRA 561, 567; and Cavile v. Heirs of Cavile, 448 Phil. 302, 311-312 (2003).
40 G.R. No. 186720, February 8, 2012, 665 SCRA 534.
43Ingles v. Estrada, supra note 37, at 321. See also Heirs of Lazaro Gallardo v. Soliman, G.R. No. 178952, April 10, 2013, 695 SCRA 453, 462.
44Bautista v. Causapin, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-07-2044, June 22, 2011, 652 SCRA 442, 454, citing Cavile v. Heirs of Cavile, supra note 39, at 311.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.