DONATO VS COURT OF APPEALS

Facts:

Petitioner Antonio T. Donato is the registered owner of a real property located in Manila,
covered by a TCT. On June 7, 1994, petitioner filed a complaint before the MeTC of Manila for
forcible entry and unlawful detainer against 43 named defendants and “all unknown occupants”
of the subject property. Petitioner alleges that: private respondents had oral contracts of lease
that expired at the end of each month but were impliedly renewed under the same terms by
mere acquiescence or tolerance; sometime in 1992, they stopped paying rent; on April 7, 1994,
petitioner sent them a written demand to vacate; the non-compliance with said demand letter
constrained him to file the ejectment case against them. Of the 43 named defendants, only 20
(private respondents) filed a consolidated Answer dated June 29, 1994 wherein they denied
non-payment of rentals. They contend that they cannot be evicted because the Urban Land
Reform Law guarantees security of tenure and priority right to purchase the subject property;
and that there was a negotiation for the purchase of the lots occupied by them but when the
negotiation reached a passive stage, they decided to continue payment of rentals and
tendered payment to petitioner’s counsel and thereafter initiated a petition for consignation of
the rentals in a civil case while they await the outcome of the negotiation to purchase.

On April 17, 1997, petitioner filed a MR attaching thereto a photocopy of the certification
of non-forum shopping duly signed by petitioner himself and the relevant records of the MeTC
and the RTC. Five days later, or on April 22, 1997, petitioner filed a Supplement to his MR
submitting the duly authenticated original of the certification of non-forum shopping signed by
petitioner. On June 23, 1997 the CA denied petitioner’s MR and its supplement, ruling that
“petitioner’s subsequent compliance did not cure the defect in the instant petition.”

Issues:

Whether or not the petitioner has adequately explained his failure to personally sign the
certification which justifies relaxation of the rule.

Whether or not the failure of the petitioner to comply with Section 3, paragraph b, Rule 6 of the
RIRCA, that is, to append to his petition copies of the pleadings and other material portions of
the records as would support the petition, justifies the outright dismissal of the petition.

Held:

YES. The requirement regarding the need for a certification of non-forum shopping in
cases filed before the CA and the corresponding sanction for noncompliance thereto are found
in the then prevailing Revised Circular No. 2891. It provides that the petitioner himself must
make the certification against forum shopping and a violation thereof shall be a cause for the
summary dismissal of the multiple petition or complaint. The rationale for the rule of personal
execution of the certification by the petitioner himself is that it is only the petitioner who has
actual knowledge of whether or not he has initiated similar actions or proceedings in other
courts or tribunals; even counsel of record may be unaware of such fact. The Court has ruled
that with respect to the contents of the certification, the rule on substantial compliance may be
availed of. This is so because the requirement of strict compliance with the rule regarding the
certification of non-forum shopping simply underscores its mandatory nature in that the
certification cannot be altogether dispensed with We fully agree with petitioner that it was
physically impossible for the petition to have been prepared and sent to the petitioner in the
United States, for him to travel from Virginia, U.S.A. to the nearest Philippine Consulate in
Washington, D.C., U.S.A., in order to sign the certification before the Philippine Consul, and for
him to send back the petition to the Philippines within the 15-day reglementary period. Thus,
we find that petitioner has adequately explained his failure to personally sign the certification
which justifies relaxation of the rule. We have stressed that the rules on forum shopping, which
were precisely designed to promote and facilitate the orderly administration of justice, should
not be interpreted with such absolute literalness as to subvert its own ultimate and legitimate
objective which is simply to prohibit and penalize the evils of forum-shopping. The subsequent
filing of the certification duly signed by thepetitioner himself should thus be deemed substantial
compliance, pro hac vice.

NO. The failure of the petitioner to comply with Section 3, paragraph b, Rule6 of the
RIRCA, that is, to append to his petition copies of the pleadings and other material portions of
the records as would support the petition, does not justify the outright dismissal of the petition.
It must be emphasized that the RIRCA gives the appellate court a certain leeway to require
parties to submit additional documents as may be necessary in the interest of substantial
justice. Under Section 3, paragraph d of Rule 3 of the RIRCA, the CA may require the parties
to complete the annexes as the court deems necessary, and if the petition is given due course,
the CA may require the elevation of a complete record of the case as provided for under
Section 3(d)(5) of Rule 6 of the RIRCA. At any rate, petitioner attached copies of the pleadings
and other material portions of the records below with his motion for reconsideration. In Jaro vs.
Court of Appeals, the Court reiterated the doctrine laid down in Cusi-Hernandez vs. Diaz and
Piglas-Kamao vs. National Labor Relations Commission that subsequent submission of the
missing documents with the motion for reconsideration amounts to substantial compliance
which calls for the relaxation of the rules of procedure. We find no cogent reason to depart
from this doctrine. Truly, in dismissing the petition for review, the CA had committed grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in putting a premium on technicalities at
the expense of a just resolution of the case.