Republic of the Philippines
National Capital Judicial Region
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
Branch 5, Manila
DSG,
Plaintiff,
Civil Case No.19-12345-CCCV
-versus- For: Unlawful Detainer
and Damages
REM,
Defendant,
x -------------------------------------------- x
MOTION TO ADMIT COMPLAINT WITH VERIFICATION OF
NON-FORUM SHOPPING
PLAINTIFF, by undersigned counsel, unto the Honorable Court, most
respectfully state:
1. On 7th of November 2019, Plaintiff filed a Complaint for Unlawful Detainer
with damages docketed as Civil Case No. 19-12345-CC, entitled “DSG vs.
REM”, which was assigned to this Honorable Court;
2. Unfortunately, Plaintiff failed to comply with the formalities required by the
Rules of Court and the A.M. No. 11-9-4-SC or Efficient Use of Paper Rule
due to the inadvertence of the undersigned counsels, the plaintiff failed to
attach in the Complaint the required Verification and Certification of Non-
Forum Shopping;
3. Plaintiff and counsels respectfully manifest that they do not have the
slightest intention of delaying the proceedings or disregarding any rule and
its failure to comply with the formalities required by the Rules of Court and
the A.M No. 11-9-4-SC or Efficient Use of Paper Rule was due to the
aforestated reason;
4. To note in the case of Roadway Express, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, the
Supreme Court considered as substantial compliance the filing of the
certification before the dismissal of the petition, to wit:
“The records show that 14 days before the CA
dismissed the petition for review, an ex-parte
manifestation containing the requirement of the
certification of non-forum shopping was already filed.
Thus, the CA had no basis in ruling that there was no
certification, although the same was in the form of a
manifestation. If subsequent compliance with Circular
28-91, after a petition was dismissed for non-
compliance was considered by the court as substantial
compliance with the said Circular, with more reason
should the petition for review be allowed in this case,
in view of the compliance prior to the dismissal of the
petition. ”
5. In addition, in the case of Uy vs. The Land Bank of the Philippines,
the Supreme Court even reinstated a petition it had already
dismissed for lack of verification and certification against forum
shopping, after petitioner had justified the reinstatement, to wit:
“The admission of the petition after the belated filing of
the certification, therefore, is not unprecedented. In
those cases where the Court excused non-compliance
with the requirements, there were special
circumstances or compelling reasons making the strict
application of the rule clearly unjustified. In the case at
bar, the apparent merits of the substantive aspects of
the case should be deemed as a special circumstance
or compelling reason for the reinstatement of the
petition. That counsel for petitioner filed the
verification/certification before receipt for the
resolution initially denying the petition also mitigates
the oversight.”
6. Thus, to correct the aforementioned mistake and inadvertence, the
Plaintiff intend to submit the Amended Complaint, which now
includes the Verification and Certification Against Non- Forum
Shopping, attached as Annex “F”;
7. It is worthy to note that by allowing the admission of the Amended
Complaint with Verification and Certification Against Non- Forum
Shopping, no unfairness to the Defendant would result. The
attachment is merely to conform to procedural rules and is not
intended to prejudice the Defendants;
8. As provided in the case of Ginete v. Court of Appeals, the Court
further held:
Let it be emphasized that the rules of procedure should
be viewed as mere tools designed to facilitate the
attainment of justice. Their strict and rigid application,
which would result in technicalities that tend to
frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must
always be eschewed. Even the Rules of Court reflect
this principle. The power to suspend or even disregard
rules can be so pervasive and compelling as to alter
even that which this Court itself has already declared
to be final, as we are now constrained to do in the
instant case.
xxxx
The emerging trend in the rulings of this Court is to
afford every party litigant the amplest opportunity for
the proper and just determination of his cause, free
from the constraints of technicalities. Time and again,
this Court has consistently held that rules must not be
applied rigidly so as not to override substantial justice.
(Emphasis supplied)
9. Based on the foregoing, the Plaintiff respectfully request this
Honorable Court to admit the Amended Complaint with Verification
and Certification Against Non-Forum Shopping and to serve the
same to the Defendant.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully pray that the attached Amended
Complaint with Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping be
admitted and served by this Honorable Court.
Manila City, 15th day of November 2019.
Aaron Emmanuel Cananua
Lifetime IBP No. 0123456
PTR No. 01234 J/01-01-19/MM
Roll No. 01234/July 5, 2006
MCLE No. V-01234
-and-
Roni Mangalus
Lifetime IBP No. 0223456
PTR No. 02234 J/01-01-19/MM
Roll No. 02234/July 5, 2006
MCLE No. V-02234
Doc. No. 7809
Page No. 7589
Book No. 0782
Series of 2019.
COPY FURNISHED:
GMAD LAW OFFICE
Suite 258 The Tower
Malate, 1004 Manila
Email add.: gmadlaw@gmail.com
Tel No.: (02) 521-7767
Counsels for Defendant
ATTY. ANGELITA BADAYOS
CLERK OF COURT
Regional Trial Court
Branch 5
EXPLANATION AS TO MODE OF SERVICE
Pursuant to Sec. 11, Rule 13, Rules of Court, service of this pleading to
adverse party by registered mail was resorted to because personal service is
not practical due to lack of manpower and distance.
Atty. Aaron Cananua
Received by:___________
Date: ___________
