Republic of the
Supreme Court
SECOND DIVISION
|
NELLIE VDA. DE FORMOSO and her
children, namely, MA. THERESA FORMOSO-PESCADOR, ROGER FORMOSO, MARY JANE
FORMOSO, BERNARD FORMOSO and PRIMITIVO MALCABA, Petitioners, - versus - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, FRANCISCO
ARCE, ATTY. BENJAMIN BARBERO, and ROBERTO NAVARRO,
Respondents. |
|
G.R. No. 154704 Present: CARPIO, J., Chairperson, NACHURA, PERALTA, ABAD, and MENDOZA, JJ.
Promulgated: June 1, 2011 |
x -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
MENDOZA, J.:
Assailed in this petition are the
January 25, 2002 Resolution[1] and
the August 8, 2002 Resolution[2] of
the Court of Appeals (CA) which dismissed the petition for certiorari
filed by the petitioners on the ground that the verification and certification
of non-forum shopping was signed by only one of the petitioners in CA G.R. SP
No. 67183, entitled Nellie P. Vda. De Formoso, et al. v. Philippine
National Bank, et al.
The Factual and
Procedural Antecedents
Records show that on
On
PNB, however, allegedly refused to
accept Malcabas tender of payment and to release the mortgage or surrender the
titles of the subject mortgaged real properties.
On March 24, 1994, the petitioners
filed a Complaint for Specific Performance against PNB before the Regional
Trial Court of Vigan, Ilocos Sur (RTC)
praying, among others, that PNB be
ordered to accept the amount of ₱2,461,024.74 as full settlement of the
loan obligation of the Formosos.
After an exchange of several pleadings,
the RTC finally rendered its decision[3] on
PNB
filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied for failure to comply with
Rule 15, Section 5 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. PNB then filed a Notice of Appeal but it was
dismissed for being filed out of time.
The petitioners received their copy
of the decision on
On
Before the Court of Appeals
On
In its
The verification and certification of
non-forum shopping was signed by only one (Mr. Primitivo Macalba) of the many
petitioners. In Loquias v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 139396,
Aggrieved,
after the denial of their motion for reconsideration, the petitioners filed
this petition for review anchored on the following
GROUNDS
The petitioners basically argue that
they have substantially complied with the requirements provided under the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure on Verification and Certification of Non-Forum
Shopping. The petitioners are of the view that the rule on Verification and
Certification of Non-Forum Shopping that all petitioners must sign should be
liberally construed, since only questions of law are raised in a petition for
certiorari and no factual issues that require personal knowledge of the
petitioners.
The petitioners further claim that
they have a meritorious petition because contrary to the ruling of the RTC, their
Petition for Relief clearly showed that, based on the transcript of
stenographic notes, there was enough testimonial evidence for the RTC to grant
them damages and attorneys fees as prayed for.
On the other hand, PNB counters that
the mandatory rule on the certification against forum shopping requires that
all of the six (6) petitioners must sign, namely: Nellie Vda. De Formoso and
her children Ma. Theresa Formoso-Pescador, Roger Formoso, Mary Jane Formoso, and
Bernard Formoso, and Primitivo Malcaba. Therefore, the signature alone of
Malcaba on the certification is insufficient.
PNB further argues that Malcaba was not even a
party or signatory to the contract of loan entered into by his co-petitioners.
Neither was there evidence that Malcaba is a relative or a co-owner of the subject
properties. It likewise argues that,
contrary to the stance of the petitioners, the issue raised before the CA, as
to whether or not the petitioners were entitled to moral and exemplary damages
as well as attorneys fees, is a factual one.
Finally, PNB asserts that the body of
the complaint filed by the petitioners failed to show any allegation that
Macalba alone suffered damages for which he alone was entitled to reliefs as
prayed for. PNB claims that the wordings of the complaint were clear that all
the petitioners were asking for moral and exemplary damages and attorneys
fees.
The petition lacks merit.
Certiorari is an extraordinary, prerogative remedy and is never issued as a matter
of right. Accordingly, the party who seeks to avail of it must strictly observe
the rules laid down by law.[8]
Section 1, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure provides:
SECTION 1.
Petition for certiorari.- When
any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions
has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no
appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper
court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered
annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and
granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.
The petition shall be accompanied by a
certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject thereof,
copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the third
paragraph of Section 3, Rule 46. [Emphasis supplied]
Under Rule 46,
Section 3, paragraph 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended,
petitions for certiorari must be verified and accompanied by a sworn
certification of non-forum shopping.
SECTION 3. Contents and
filing of petition; effect of non-compliance with requirements. The
petition shall contain the full names and actual addresses of all the petitioners
and respondents, a concise statement of the matters involved, the factual
background of the case, and the grounds relied upon for the relief prayed
for.
In actions filed under Rule
65, the petition shall further indicate the material dates showing when notice
of the judgment or final order or resolution subject thereof was received, when
a motion for new trial or reconsideration, if any, was filed and when notice of
the denial thereof was received.
It shall be filed in seven
(7) clearly legible copies together with proof of service thereof on the
respondent with the original copy intended for the court indicated as such by
the petitioner, and shall be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate
original or certified true copy of the judgment, order, resolution, or ruling
subject thereof, such material portions of the record as are referred to
therein, and other documents relevant or pertinent thereto. The certification shall be accomplished by
the proper clerk of court or his duly authorized representative, or by the
proper officer of the court, tribunal, agency or office involved or by his duly
authorized representative. The other
requisite number of copies of the petition shall be accompanied by clearly
legible plain copies of all documents attached to the original.
The petitioner shall also submit together with the
petition a sworn certification that he has not
theretofore commenced any other action involving the same issues in the Supreme
Court, the Court of Appeals or different divisions thereof, or any other
tribunal or agency; if there is such other action or proceeding, he must state
the status of the same; and if he should thereafter learn that a similar action
or proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court
of Appeals, or different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency, he
undertakes to promptly inform the aforesaid courts and other tribunal or agency
thereof within five (5) days therefrom.
The petitioner shall pay
the corresponding docket and other lawful fees to the clerk of court and
deposit the amount of P500.00 for costs at the time of the filing of the
petition.
The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of
the foregoing requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the
petition. [Emphases supplied]
The
acceptance of a petition for certiorari as well as the grant of due course
thereto is, in general, addressed to the sound discretion of the court. Although the Court has absolute discretion to
reject and dismiss a petition for certiorari,
it does so only (1) when the petition fails to demonstrate grave abuse of
discretion by any court, agency, or branch of the government; or (2) when there are procedural errors, like
violations of the Rules of Court or Supreme Court Circulars.[9]
[Emphasis supplied]
In the case at bench, the petitioners
claim that the petition for certiorari that they filed before the CA
substantially complied with the requirements provided for under the 1997 Rules
of Civil Procedure on Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping.
The
Court disagrees.
Sections
4 and 5 of Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provide:
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 pleadings 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.
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. x x x.
In this regard, the case of Oldarico S. Traveno v. Bobongon
Banana Growers Multi-Purpose Cooperative,[10]
is enlightening:
Respecting
the appellate courts dismissal of petitioners appeal due to the failure of
some of them to sign the therein accompanying verification and certification
against forum-shopping, the Courts guidelines for the bench and bar in Altres
v. Empleo, which were culled from jurisprudential pronouncements, are
instructive:
For the
guidance of the bench and bar, the Court restates in capsule form the
jurisprudential pronouncements already reflected above respecting
non-compliance with the requirements on, or submission of defective,
verification and certification against forum shopping:
1) A distinction must be made between
non-compliance with the requirement on or submission of defective verification,
and non-compliance with the requirement on or submission of defective
certification against forum shopping.
2) As to verification, non-compliance
therewith or a defect therein does not necessarily render the pleading fatally
defective. The Court may order its submission or correction or act on the
pleading if the attending circumstances are such that strict compliance with
the Rule may be dispensed with in order that the ends of justice may be served
thereby.
3) Verification is deemed substantially
complied with when one who has ample knowledge to swear to the truth of the
allegations in the complaint or petition signs the verification, and when
matters alleged in the petition have been made in good faith or are true and
correct.
4) As to certification against forum
shopping, non-compliance therewith or a defect therein, unlike in verification,
is generally not curable by its subsequent submission or correction thereof,
unless there is a need to relax the Rule on the ground of substantial
compliance or presence of special circumstances or compelling reasons.
5) The certification against forum
shopping must be signed by all the 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.
The
petition for certiorari filed with the CA stated the following names as
petitioners: Nellie Panelo Vda. De Formoso, Ma. Theresa Formoso-Pescador, Roger
Formoso, Mary Jane Formoso, Bernard Formoso, Benjamin Formoso, and Primitivo
Malcaba.
Admittedly, among the seven (7)
petitioners mentioned, only Malcaba signed the verification and certification
of non-forum shopping in the subject petition. There was no proof that Malcaba
was authorized by his co-petitioners to sign for them. There was no special power of attorney shown by the Formosos authorizing
Malcaba as their attorney-in-fact in filing a petition for review on
certiorari. Neither could the petitioners give at
least a reasonable explanation as to why only he signed the verification and
certification of non-forum shopping. In Athena
Computers, Inc. and Joselito R. Jimenez v. Wesnu A. Reyes, the Court
explained that:
The verification of the
petition and certification on non-forum shopping before the Court of Appeals were signed only
by Jimenez. There is no showing that he
was authorized to sign the same by Athena, his co-petitioner.
Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules states that 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 knowledge and
belief. Consequently, the verification
should have been signed not only by Jimenez but also by Athenas duly
authorized representative.
In Docena
v. Lapesura, we ruled that the certificate of non-forum shopping should be signed
by all the petitioners or plaintiffs in a case, and that the signing by only
one of them is insufficient. The attestation
on non-forum shopping requires personal
knowledge by the party executing the same, and the lone signing petitioner
cannot be presumed to have personal knowledge of the filing or non-filing by
his co-petitioners of any action or claim the same as similar to the current
petition.
The certification against forum shopping in CA-G.R. SP No. 72284 is
fatally defective, not having been duly signed by both petitioners and thus
warrants the dismissal of the petition for certiorari. We have consistently held that
the certification against forum shopping must be signed by the principal
parties. With respect to a corporation, the certification against forum
shopping may be signed for and on its behalf, by a specifically authorized
lawyer who has personal knowledge of the facts required to be disclosed in such
document.
While the Rules of Court may be relaxed for
persuasive and weighty reasons to relieve a litigant from an injustice
commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedures, nevertheless
they must be faithfully followed. In the instant case, petitioners have not
shown any reason which justifies relaxation of the Rules. We have held that procedural rules are not to
be belittled or dismissed simply because their non-observance may have
prejudiced a partys substantive rights.
Like all rules, they are required to be followed except for the most
persuasive of reasons when they may be relaxed. Not one of these persuasive
reasons is present here.
In fine, we hold that the Court of Appeals
did not err in dismissing the petition for certiorari in view of the
procedural lapses committed by petitioners.[11]
[Emphases supplied]
Furthermore, the petitioners argue
that the CA should not have dismissed the whole petition but should have given
it due course insofar as Malcaba is concerned because he signed the certification.
The petitioners also contend that the CA should have been liberal in the
application of the Rules because they have a meritorious case against PNB.
The
Court, however, is not persuaded.
The petitioners were given a chance
by the CA to comply with the Rules when they filed their motion for
reconsideration, but they refused to do so. Despite the opportunity given to
them to make all of them sign the verification and certification of non-forum
shopping, they still failed to comply.
Thus, the CA was constrained to deny their motion and affirm the earlier
resolution.[12]
Indeed,
liberality and leniency were accorded in some cases.[13] In these cases, however, those who did not
sign were relatives of the lone signatory, so unlike in this case, where Malcaba
is not a relative who is similarly situated with the other petitioners and who cannot
speak for them. In the case of Heirs of Domingo Hernandez, Sr. v. Plaridel
Mingoa, Sr.,[14] it was written:
In the
instant case, petitioners share a common interest and defense inasmuch as they
collectively claim a right not to be dispossessed of the subject lot by virtue
of their and their deceased parents construction of a family home and
occupation thereof for more than 10 years. The commonality of their
stance to defend their alleged right over the controverted lot thus gave
petitioners xxx authority to inform the Court of Appeals in behalf of the other
petitioners that they have not commenced any action or claim involving the same
issues in another court or tribunal, and that there is no other pending action
or claim in another court or tribunal involving the same issues.
Here, all the petitioners are immediate
relatives who share a common interest in the land sought to be reconveyed and a
common cause of action raising the same arguments in support thereof. There was sufficient basis, therefore, for
Domingo Hernandez, Jr. to speak for and in behalf of his co-petitioners when he
certified that they had not filed any action or claim in another court or
tribunal involving the same issues.
Thus, the Verification/Certification that Hernandez, Jr. executed
constitutes substantial compliance under the Rules. [Emphasis supplied]
The same leniency was accorded to the
petitioner in the case of Oldarico S. Traveno v. Bobongon Banana
Growers Multi-Purpose Cooperative,[15] where it was stated:
The same leniency was applied by the
Court in Cavile v. Heirs of Cavile, because the lone petitioner who
executed the certification of non-forum shopping was a relative and co-owner of the other petitioners
with whom he shares a common interest. x x x[16]
Considering
the above circumstances, the Court does not see any similarity at all in the case at bench to
compel itself to relax the requirement of strict compliance with the rule
regarding the certification against forum shopping.
At any rate, the Court cannot
accommodate the petitioners request to re-examine the testimony of Malcaba in
the transcript of stenographic notes of the
Primarily, Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court categorically states
that the petition filed shall raise only questions of law, which must be
distinctly set forth. A question of law
arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts,
while there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or
falsity of the alleged facts. For a
question to be one of law, the same must not involve an examination of the
probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them. The resolution of the issue must rest solely
on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances. Once it is clear that the issue invites a
review of the evidence presented, the question posed is one of fact.[17]
In this case, the petition clearly raises a factual issue. As correctly
argued by PNB, the substantive issue of whether or not the petitioners are entitled
to moral and exemplary damages as well as attorneys fees is a factual issue which is beyond the province of a petition
for review on certiorari.
Secondly, even if the Court glosses over the
technical defects, the petition for relief cannot be granted. A perusal of the Petition for Relief of
Judgment discloses that there is no fact constituting fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence
which are the grounds therefor. From the
petition itself, it appears that the petitioners counsel had a copy of the
transcript of stenographic notes which was in his cabinet all along and only discovered
it when he was disposing old and terminated cases.[18] If he was only attentive to his records, he
could have filed a motion for reconsideration or a notice of appeal in behalf
of the petitioners.
WHEREFORE,
the petition is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
JOSE CATRAL
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T.
CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ROBERTO A.
ABAD
Associate Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest 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 Courts Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second 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 Chairpersons 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 Courts Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
[1]Rollo, pp, 26-27; penned by Associate Justice
Mariano C. Del Castillo (now Supreme Court Justice) and concurred in by
Associate Justice Ruben T. Reyes (former Supreme Court Justice) and Associate Justice
Renato C. Dacudao.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8] Eagle Ridge Golf & Country Club v. Court of Appeals & Eagle
Ridge Employees
[9] Athena Computers, Inc. and Joselito R. Jimenez v. Wesnu A. Reyes, G.R. No. 156905, September 5, 2007,
532 SCRA 343, 350.
[10] G.R. No. 164205,
[11] Supra
note 9.
[12] Rollo, p. 29.
[13] Heirs of Domingo Hernandez, Sr. v.
Plaridel Mingoa, Sr., G.R. No. 146548,
[14]
[15] Supra note 10.
[16]
[17] Cebu Bionic Builders Supply, Inc. vs. Development Bank of the
Philippines, G.R.
No. 154366, November 17, 2010.
[18] Petition for Relief of Judgment, paragraph 7; rollo, p. 158.