THIRD DIVISION
|
TERESA,
MARIA CHRISTINA, GENARO III, MARIA LUISA, CRISPIN JR., VINCENT and RASCHEL,
all surnamed GABRIEL, Petitioners, - versus - HON. COURT OF APPEALS,
EMMA, CORAZON and RAMONA, all surnamed RONQUILLO, Respondents. |
G.R.
No. 149909
Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.,
Chairperson, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CHICO-NAZARIO, NACHURA, and REYES, JJ. Promulgated: October
11, 2007 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
NACHURA, J.:
Before
the Court is a petition for review on certiorari,[1]
questioning Resolutions[2]
dated
Petitioners
are the heirs of the late Atty. Crispin F. Gabriel (Atty. Gabriel), who was
designated as the sole executor of the last will and testament of the deceased
Genaro G. Ronquillo (Ronquillo) whose will was probated in 1978 before the
On
While
still acting as executor, Atty. Gabriel, with prior approval of the probate
court, sold three parcels of land situated at Quiapo,
On
April 3, 2001, petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus with Preliminary Injunction
and Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order in the CA.[8]
Petitioners questioned the twin orders of the probate court, particularly (1) the
court’s refusal to order the release of the amount of Php648,000.00
representing the compensation of Atty. Gabriel as the executor of the last will
and testament; and (2) the court’s insistence to hear respondents’ allegation
of non-payment of taxes resulting from the sale of the properties located at
Quiapo, Manila, for which reason the compensation of Atty. Gabriel should not be
released until resolution by the probate court on this matter.[9]
In
the meantime, the parties came to an agreement to divide the amount deposited
in court. Petitioners received Php284,400.00, and thus, there still remained a
balance of Php363,600.00.[10]
On
An
examination of the instant petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus
reveals that:
1. The verification and certification of
non-forum shopping was signed
by only one (Teresa S. Gabriel) of the seven petitioners,
and there is no showing or proof that she was duly authorized to sign on behalf
of her co-petitioners; and
2. There is no written explanation why copies of the petition had to be furnished the respondents by way of registered mail rather than through the preferred personal service.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, for
being insufficient in form and substance pursuant to Section 1, 2 & 3, par.
2, Rule 65, in relation to Section 3 pars. 3 & 5, Rule 46 and Section 11,
Rule 13 both of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the petition for certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus is hereby DENIED
DUE COURSE and accordingly DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.[12]
On
For
failure of petitioners to cure the defects that resulted in the dismissal of
their petition, per Resolution dated
SO
ORDERED.
Petitioners
presented the following issues in their Memorandum: 1) whether there was substantial
compliance with the certification of non-forum shopping before the CA; 2)
whether the written explanation of why personal service was not done is a
mandatory requirement in pleadings filed before the CA; 3) whether the
remaining balance of compensation of Atty. Gabriel should be released; and 4)
whether the probate court can take cognizance of the tax controversies.[14]
The
petition is devoid of merit. The CA committed no reversible error in issuing
the assailed Resolutions.
On
the first issue regarding the certification against forum shopping, the Rules
of Court provides that the plaintiff or the principal party shall certify under
oath in the complaint or other initiatory pleading the requirements as mandated
under Section 5, Rule 7.[15]
The said requirements are mandatory, and therefore, strict compliance thereof is
necessary for the proper administration of justice.
In
the petition filed by the petitioners in the CA, the verification and the
certification against forum shopping were signed by Teresa Gabriel alone,
albeit there were seven petitioners therein.[16]
In their Memorandum,[17]
petitioners proffer the view that the signature of Teresa, being the mother of
the rest of the petitioners, should be considered as substantial compliance,
for she was willing to take the risk of contempt and perjury should she be
found lying. According to petitioners, what is fatal is the utter lack of
signatory in the certification.[18]
In
numerous decisions,[19]
this Court has been consistent in stringently enforcing the requirement of
verification[20] and
certification of non-forum shopping. When there is more than one petitioner, a
petition signed solely by one of them is defective, unless he was authorized by
his co-parties to represent them and to sign the certification. The attestation
contained in the certification of non-forum shopping requires personal
knowledge by the party who executed the same.[21]
In
the instant case, the records are bereft of anything that would show that
Teresa was authorized by the other petitioners to file the petition. In the
certification against forum shopping, the principal party is required to
certify under oath as to the matters contained therein and failure to comply
with the requirements shall not be curable by amendment but shall be a ground
for the dismissal of the case. Personal knowledge of the party executing the
same is important and a similar requirement applies to the verification. Thus,
the verification and certification signed only by Teresa are utterly defective,
and it is within the prerogative of the court to dismiss the petition.
As
aptly stated in Ortiz v. CA,[22]
substantial compliance will not suffice in a matter involving strict
observance. The attestation contained in the certification of non-forum
shopping requires personal knowledge by the party who executed the same. To deserve
the Court's consideration, petitioners must show reasonable cause for failure
to personally sign the certification. They must convince the Court that the
outright dismissal of the petition would defeat the administration of justice. In
this case, the petitioners did not give any explanation to warrant their
exemption from the strict application of the rule. Downright disregard of the
rules cannot justly be rationalized by harking on the policy of liberal
construction.[23]
On
the second issue, the written explanation why another mode of service was
resorted to is a mandatory and indispensable requirement in pleadings or papers
filed before all the courts of the land. Parties must exert their best to
effect personal service. The Rules of
Court[24]
provides that personal service of petitions and other pleadings is the general
rule, while a resort to other modes of service and filing is the exception.[25]
Strictest compliance with Section 11 of Rule 13 is mandated by the Court,[26] and noncompliance therewith is a ground for
the denial of the petition or the expulsion of the pleading from the
records.
This
Court will no longer dwell on the third issue because it is a matter that
should be ventilated before the probate court.
As
to the fourth issue, the probate court can rightfully take cognizance of the unpaid
taxes of the estate of the deceased; if the estate is found liable, the probate
court has the discretion to order the payment of the said taxes.[27]
Finally,
petitioners should bear in mind that the right to appeal is not a natural right
or a part of due process. It is merely a statutory privilege, and may be
exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law.
The party who seeks to avail of the remedy of appeal must comply with the
requirements of the rules; otherwise, the appeal is lost. Rules of procedure
are required to be followed, except only when, for the most persuasive of
reasons, they may be relaxed to relieve the litigant of an injustice not
commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the
procedure prescribed.[28]
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing,
the petition is DENIED for lack of
merit. The Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
MA. ALICIA
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice |
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
RUBEN T. REYES
Associate
Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson,
Third Division
C E R T I F I C A T I O
N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article
VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify
that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s
Division.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief
Justice
[1] RULES OF COURT, Rule 45.
[2] Penned by Associate Justice
Bernardo P. Abesamis, with Associate Justices Godardo A. Jacinto and Eliezer R.
De Los Santos, concurring; rollo, pp.
21-23.
[3] Rollo, p. 25.
[4] Penned by Judge Manuel S.
Padolina, Regional Trial Court,
[5] Rollo, p. 10.
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15] RULES OF COURT, Rule 7, Sec. 5.
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. The submission of a false
certification or non-compliance with any of the undertakings therein shall
constitute indirect contempt of court, without prejudice to the corresponding
administrative and criminal actions. If
the acts of the party or his counsel clearly constitute willful and deliberate
forum shopping, the same shall be ground for summary dismissal with prejudice
and shall constitute direct contempt, as well as a cause for administrative
sanctions.
[16] Rollo,
p. 34.
[17]
[18]
[19] Chua v.
Torres, G.R. No. 151900, August 30, 2005, 468 SCRA 358, 370-371; Pagtalunan v. Manlapig, G.R. No. 155738,
August 9, 2005, 466 SCRA 285, 287; Barcenas
v. Tomas, G.R. No. 150321, March 31, 2005, 454 SCRA 593, 605; Ortiz v. CA, 360 Phil. 95, 100 (1998).
[20] RULES OF COURT, Rule 7, Sec. 4.
SEC. 4. Verification.
– Except when otherwise specifically required by law or rule, pleadings need
not be under oath, verified or accompanied by affidavit.
A pleading is verified by an
affidavit that the affiant has read the pleading and that the allegations
therein are true and correct of his personal knowledge or based on authentic
records.
A pleading required to be
verified which contains a verification based on “information and belief,” or
upon “knowledge, information and belief,” or lacks a proper verification, shall
be treated as an unsigned pleading.
[21] Pagtalunan v. Manlapig, supra note 19.
[22] Supra
note 19, at 99.
[23]
[24] RULES
OF COURT, Rule 13, Sec. 11.
SEC. 11. Priorities
in modes of service and filing. – Whenever practicable, the service and
filing of pleadings and other papers shall be done personally. Except with respect to papers emanating from
the court, a resort to other modes must be accompanied by a written explanation
why the service or filing was not done personally. A violation of this Rule may be cause to
consider the paper as not filed.
[25] Tagabi
v. Tanque, G.R. No. 144024,
[26] Solar
Team Entertainment, Inc. v. Ricafort, 355 Phil. 404, 415 (1998).
[27] Marcos II v. CA, G.R. No. 120880, June 5, 1997, 273 SCRA 47, 62; Pineda v. Court of First Instance of Tayabas, 52 Phil. 803 (1929).
[28] Ortiz v. CA, supra note 19, at 101.