Case #1

BOBIE ROSE D. V. FRIAS vs. ALCAYDE

G.R. No. 194262, February 28, 2018
TIJAM, J.:

FACTS:

On December 5, 2003, Bobie Frias (Petitioner), lessor and Rolando Alcayde (Respondent),
lessee entered into a contract of lease involving a residential house and lot in Ayala Alabang
Village, Muntinlupa City for a period of 1 year with a monthly rental of P30,000. Alcayde
refused to perform his contractual obligations. This prompted Frias to file a complaint for
unlawful detainer with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC). The process server tried to
personally serve the summons to Alcayde but to no avail. Through substituted service, summons
was served upon Alcayde’s caretaker. On July 26, 2006, the MeTC rendered a Decision in favor
of Frias and ordered Alcayde to vacate the premises and pay Frias the accrued rentals (P30,000)
at 12% legal interest plus P10,000 in attorney’s fees. On July 25, 2007, Alcayde filed a petition
for Annulment of Judgment with a Prayer for Issuance of TRO and/or Injuction, with the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) averred that the decision of the MeTC does not bind him since the
court did not acquire jurisdiction over his person A copy of the petition for annulment of
judgment was allegedly served to Frias. Based on the Officer’s Return, Sheriff cause the “service
of a Notice of Raffle and Summons together with a copy of the complaints and its annexes to
Frias through Sally Gonzales, the Secretary of Frias’ legal counsel, Atty. Daniel Frias. On
September 25, 2007, Alcayde filed an Ex-Parte Motion, to declare Frias in default on the ground
that despite her receipt of the summons, no pleading was filed. On October 3, 2007, Frias filed a
Special Appearance/Submission (Jursdictional Infirmity Raised) alleging among others that
Alcayde’s Motion to Revive Relief re: Issuance of a TRO merits neither judicial cognizance nor
consideration. On December 3, 2007, the RTC issued an Order granting Alcayde’s prayer for the
issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin the MeTC’s decision. The RTC ruled that
summons and copies of the petition and its attachments were not duly served upon Frias, either
personally or through substituted service in accordance with the Rules. There is no proof that
Ms. Gonzales or Atty. Frias was authorized by Frias to receive summons on her befalf.

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner.

2. Whether or not special appearance to question the court’s jurisdiction is considered

voluntary appearance.

HELD:

1. No, there was neither a valid service of summons in person nor a valid substituted service of
summons over the person of the petitioner. The preferred mode of service of summons is
personal service. To warrant substitute service of summons and copy of the complaint, the
serving officer must first attempt to effect the same upon the defendant in person. Only after the
attempt at personal service has become impossible within a reasonable time may the officer
resort to substituted service. The requisites of substituted service are as follows:

Impossibility of Prompt Personal Service – The party relying on substituted service or the Sheriff
must show that defendant cannot be served promptly or there is impossibility of prompt service.
For substituted service of summons to be available, there must be several attempts by the Sheriff
to personally serve the summons within a reasonable period of 1 month which eventually
resulted in failure to prove impossibility of prompt service. Several attempts means at least 3
tries, preferably on at least 2 different dates and Sheriff must state why such efforts were
unsuccessful;

Specific Details in the Return; A Person of Suitable Age and Discretion – This means a person
who has attained the age of full legal capacity (18 years old) and is considered to have enough
discernment to understand the importance of a summons. Discretion is the ability to make
decisions which represent a responsible choice and for which an understanding of what is lawful,
right or wise may presupposed;

A Competent Persona in Charge. The Officers Return revealed that no diligent efforts were
exerted and no positive step was taken to locate and serve the summons personally on the
petitioner. Petitioner was not present at her given address. Sheriff immediately resorted to
substituted service of summons by proceeding to the office of Atty. Frias, petitioners counsel.
Sheriff failed to show that she made several attempts to effect personal service fir at least 3 time
on at least 2 different dates. Without specifying the detail if the circumstance of the efforts
exerted to serve to the summons, a general statement that such efforts were made will not suffice
for purposes of complying with the rules of substituted service.

2. No. A party who makes a special appearance to challenge, among others, the court’s
jurisdiction over his person cannot be considered to have submitted to its authority. Records
show that the petitioner never received any copy of the the respondent's petition to annul the final
and executory judgment of the MeTC in the unlawful detainer case. Petitioner never faltered in
declaring that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over her person, due to invalid and
improper service of summons. When the petitioner filed those pleadings and motions, it was only
in a "special" character, conveying the fact that her appearance before the trial court was with a
qualification, i.e., to defy the RTC's lack of jurisdiction over her person. While it is true that an
appearance in whatever form, without explicitly objecting to the jurisdiction of the court over the
person, is a submission to the jurisdiction of the court over the person, the appearance must
constitute a positive act on the part of the litigant manifesting an intention to submit to the court's
jurisdiction. For purposes of acquiring jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, the Rules
require the service of summons and not of any other court processes. The jurisdiction over the
person of the petitioner was never vested with the RTC despite the mere filing of the petition for
annulment of judgment. The manner of substituted service by the process server was apparently
invalid and ineffective
Case #2
MARCELINO M. FLORETE, JR. vs. ROGELIO M. FLORETE
GR. No. 174909, January 20, 2016
LEONEN, J.:

FACTS:

People’s Broadcasting is a private corporation authorized to operate, own, maintain, install, and
construct radio and television stations in the Philippines. Twenty-five percent (25%) of the
corporation’s authorized capital stock were then subscribed.

On June 23, 2003, Marcelino Jr. Group filed before the RTC a Complaint for Declaration of
Nullity of Issuances, Transfers and Sale of Shares in People’s Broadcasting Service, Inc. and All
Posterior Subscriptions and Increases thereto with Damages against Rogelio, Sr. Group.

The RTC issued a Decision dismissing the Marcelino, Jr. Group’s Complaint. It ruled that the
Marcelino, Jr. Group did not have a cause of action against the Rogelio, Sr. Group and that the
former is estopped from questioning the assailed movement of shares of People’s Broadcasting.
It also ruled that indispensible parties were not joined in their Complaint. The CA denied the
Marcelino, Jr. Group’s Petition and affirmed the trial court Decision.

ISSUE S:

1. WON it was proper for the RTC to dismiss the Complaint filed by the Marcelino, Jr.
Group?
2. What are the consequences when an indispensable party was not impleaded?

HELD:

Yes. Erroneously pursuing a derivative suit as a class suit not only meant that the Marcelino, Jr.
Group lacked a cause of action; it also meant that they failed to implead an indispensable party.

In derivative suits, the corporation concerned must be impleaded as a party. As explained

in Asset Privatization Trust:

Not only is the corporation an indispensible party, but it is also the present rule that it must be
served with process. The reason given is that the judgment must be made binding upon the
corporation in order that the corporation may get the benefit of the suit and may not bring a
subsequent suit against the same defendants for the same cause of action. In other words the
corporation must be joined as party because it is its cause of action that is being litigated and
because judgment must be a res ajudicata [sic] against it.126
We have already discussed Go where this court concluded that an action brought by three
individual stockholders was, in truth, a derivative suit. There, this court further explained that a
case cannot prosper when the proper party is not impleaded:

As it is clear that the acts being assailed are those of PHHC, this case cannot prosper for failure
to implead the proper party, PHCC.

An indispensable party is defined as one who has such an interest in the controversy or subject
matter that a final adjudication cannot be made, in his absence, without injuring or affecting that
interest. In the recent case of Nagkakaisang Lakas ng Manggagawa sa Keihin (NLMK-OLALIA-
KMU) v. Keihin Philippines Corporation, the Court had the occasion to state that:

Under Section 7, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, "parties in interest without whom no final
determination can be had of an action shall be joined as plaintiffs or defendants." If there is a
failure to implead an indispensable party, any judgment rendered would have no effectiveness. It
is "precisely ‘when an indispensable party is not before the court (that) an action should be
dismissed.’ The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null
and void for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even to those present."
The purpose of the rules on joinder of indispensable parties is a complete determination of all
issues not only between the parties themselves, but also as regards other persons who may be
affected by the judgment. A decision valid on its face cannot attain real finality where there is
want of indispensable parties.

Similarly, in the case of Plasabas v. Court of Appeals, the Court held that a final decree would
necessarily affect the rights of indispensable parties so that the Court could not proceed without
their presence.

II

There are two consequences of a finding on appeal that indispensable parties have not been
joined. First, all subsequent actions of the lower courts are null and void for lack of
jurisdiction. Second, the case should be remanded to the trial court for the inclusion of
indispensable parties. It is only upon the plaintiff’s refusal to comply with an order to join
indispensable parties that the case may be dismissed.

All subsequent actions of lower courts are void as to both the absent and present parties. 130 To
reiterate, the inclusion of an indispensable party is a jurisdictional requirement:

While the failure to implead an indispensable party is not per se a ground for the dismissal of an
action, considering that said party may still be added by order of the court, on motion of the party
or on its own initiative at any stage of the action and/or such times as are just, it remains essential
— as it is jurisdictional — that any indispensable party be impleaded in the proceedings before
the court renders judgment. This is because the absence of such indispensable party renders all
subsequent actions of the court null and void for want of authority to act, not only as to the
absent parties but even as to those present.131 (Emphasis supplied, citation omitted)
In Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. v. Alejo 132 and Arcelona v. Court of Appeals,133 this court
clarified that the courts must first acquire jurisdiction over the person of an indispensable party.
Any decision rendered by a court without first obtaining the required jurisdiction over
indispensable parties is null and void for want of jurisdiction: "the presence of indispensable
parties is necessary to vest the court with jurisdiction, which is ‘the authority to hear and
determine a cause, the right to act in a case.’"134

The second consequence is unavailing in this case. While "[n]either misjoinder nor non-joinder
of parties is ground for dismissal of an action" and is, thus, not fatal to the Marcelino, Jr. Group’s
action, we have shown that they lack a cause of action. This warrants the dismissal of their
Complaint.

A void judgment for want of jurisdiction is no judgment at all. It cannot be the source of any
right nor the creator of any obligation. All acts performed pursuant to it and all claims
emanating from it have no legal effect. Hence, it can never become final and any writ of
execution based on it is void: x x x it may be said to be a lawless thing which can be treated as
an outlaw and slain at sight, or ignored wherever and whenever it exhibits its head.

Case #3
HEIRS OF JOSEFINA GABRIEL v. SECUNDINA CEBRERO
G.R. No. 222737, November 12, 2018
PERALTA, J.:

SUMMARY:

Caniza filed a suit on behalf of Gabriel. Caniza executed the verification and certification against
forum-shopping, without an SPA from Gabriel. The Court held that such verification and
certification were not valid.

DOCTRINE:

When an SPA was constituted precisely to authorize the agent to file and prosecute suits on
behalf of the principal, then it is such agent who has actual and personal knowledge whether he
or she has initiated similar actions or proceedings before various courts on the same issue on the
principal's behalf, thus, satisfying the requirements for a valid certification against forum
shopping.

FACTS:

Segundina Cebrero, through her attorney-in-fact Remedios Muyot, executed a real estate
mortgage over the subject property registered under the name of Cebrero's late husband Virgilio
as security for the payment of the amount of P8 million, pursuant to an amicable settlement dated
January 11, 1991 entered into by the parties in the case of annulment of revocation of donation.
In the said settlement, Josefina Gabriel recognized Cebrero's absolute ownership of the subject
property and relinquished all her claims over the property in consideration of the payment of the
said P8 million. Upon Cebrero's failure to pay the amount within the period of extension, Gabriel
filed in 1993 an action for foreclosure of the real estate mortgage docketed. The RTC ruled in
Gabriel's favor and ordered Cebrero to pay the P8 million and interest, or the subject property
shall be sold at public auction in default of payment. The sheriff initiated the necessary
proceedings for the public auction sale when no appeal was filed and the decision became final.
Gabriel, being the sole bidder, purchased Cebrero's undivided share of one-half (1/2) conjugal
share, plus her inheritance consisting of one-ninth (1/9) of the subject property in the amount of
P13,690,574.00. On November 16, 1995, the sheriff issued the Final Deed of Sale when Cebrero
failed to redeem the property. However, Gabriel had not registered the Final Deed of Sale since
she disputed the BIR’s estate tax assessment on the subject property considering that she claimed
only a portion thereof. It was also during this time that she discovered the registration of a Deed
of Absolute Sale executed by respondent Celso Lavina, Cebrero's attorney-in-fact, purportedly
conveying the entire property in favor of Progressive Trade & Services Enterprises for and in
consideration of P27 million. Caniza, allegedly in behalf of Gabriel, instituted a Complaintf or
declaration of nullity of sale and of the TCT of the subject property registered under Progressive,
a single proprietorship represented by its President and Chairman, respondent Chua.

In their answer, respondents alleged that Gabriel has no legal capacity to sue as she was
bedridden and confined. The complaint should be dismissed because Caniza signed the
verification and certification of the complaint without proper authority. Gabriel died during the
pendency of the case, thus he her heirs substituted her. RTC ruled for the Heirs of Gabriel but the
CA reversed.

ISSUES and RULING: 

1. WoN respondents are estopped from raising on appeal of the main case
Caniza’s authority to file the case on behalf of Gabriel because the RTC Order denying
Lavina's motion to set a preliminary hearing on the affirmative defenses has attained
finality since respondents did not appeal said Order 
NO. The RTC Order dated June 13, 2007 denying the motion to set hearing on special and
affirmative defenses is no doubt interlocutory for it did not finally dispose of the case but will
proceed with the pre-trial. As such, said Order is not appealable, but may be questioned as part of
an appeal that may eventually be taken from the final judgment rendered. Here, respondents had
consistently raised in their Answer and in the appeal before the CA the issue of Caniza's
authority to file the case on behalf of Gabriel.

2. WoN the verification and certification of the complaint conforms with the rules since

Caniza, as Gabriel's attorney-in-fact, signed it?
NO. When an SPA was constituted precisely to authorize the agent to file and prosecute suits on
behalf of the principal, then it is such agent who has actual and personal knowledge whether he
or she has initiated similar actions or proceedings before various courts on the same issue on the
principal's behalf, thus, satisfying the requirements for a valid certification against forum
shopping. The rationale behind the rule that it must be the "petitioner or principal party himself”
who should sign such certification does not apply. Thus, the rule on the certification against
forum shopping has been properly complied with when it is the agent or attorney-in-fact who
initiated the action on the principal's behalf and who signed the certification against forum
shopping.

However, there was no duly executed SPA appended to the complaint to prove Caniza's
supposed authority to file and prosecute suits on behalf of Gabriel. The Court cannot consider the
mere mention in the December 15, 1993 Decision that he was Gabriel's attorney-in-fact as
evidence that he was indeed authorized and empowered to initiate the instant action against
respondents. There was also no evidence of substantial compliance with the rules or even an
attempt to submit an SPA after filing of the complaint.

3. WoN the defect was cured when Caniza, being one of the heirs, substituted Gabriel

when she died during the pendency of the case before the trial court
NO. Caniza's subsequent substitution as one of Gabriel's heirs did not cure the defect in the
complaint, i.e., when he signed the verification and certification against forum shopping without
apparent authority. To reiterate, the trial court acquires jurisdiction over the plaintiff upon the
filing of the complaint. Besides, the substitution merely ensured that Gabriel's interest would be
properly represented and that her heirs were brought to jurisdiction of the court.

NOTES: Petition DENIED.

Obiter : Lastly, the Court notes that the real estate mortgage over a portion of the property was
annotated on the transfer certificate of titles. A mortgage is a real right, which follows the
property, even after subsequent transfers by the mortgagor. "A registered mortgage lien is
considered inseparable from the property inasmuch as it is a right in rem." The sale or transfer of
the mortgaged property cannot affect or release the mortgage; thus, the purchaser or transferee is
necessarily bound to acknowledge and respect the encumbrance. The implication in buying the
property, with notice that it was mortgaged, was that Progressive necessarily undertook to allow
the subject property to be sold upon failure of Gabriel to obtain payment from Cebrero once the
indebtedness matured. Thus, it cannot invoke being a buyer in good faith to exclude the property
from being claimed ·by virtue of foreclosure of the mortgage over the said property. This,
however, does not mean that the Court rules in favour of the petitioners. Considering that the
complaint was filed by Caniza, who has failed to prove that he was validly authorized to do so,
the complaint does not produce any legal effect. The RTC never validly acquired jurisdiction
over the case. Thus, the instant petition must be dismissed
Case #4
TAN VS. REPUBLIC
G.R. No. 216756, August 08, 2018
DEL CASTILLO, J.:

SUMMARY: The SC ordered the reversal of the trial court order granting Genoveva Tan’s
motion to exclude her from the case filed by the Republic for collection of unpaid taxes, which
were satisfied through spurious Tax Credit Certificate.

DOCTRINE: The active participation of the party against whom the action was brought,
coupled with his failure to object to the jurisdiction of the court or quasi-judicial body where the
action is pending, is tantamount to an invocation of that jurisdiction and a willingness to abide by
the resolution of the case and will bar said party from later on impugning the court or body's
jurisdiction.

FACTS:

In 2002, the Republic, through the Bureau of Customs, filed an Amended Complaint for
collection of sum of money with damages and prayer for injunctive writ against Mannequin
International Corporation (Mannequin) before the RTC of Manila, on the cause of action that
Mannequin paid its 1995-1997 duties and taxes using spurious Tax Credit Certificates amounting
to P55,664,027.00. The original complaint was amended to include other individuals - among
them Genoveva P. Tan (Genoveva) - as one of the defendants.

After the Republic rested its case, Tan filed a motion to exclude and drop her from the case
and/or dismiss the same as against her. The RTC granted Tan's motion to exclude.

The Republic thus filed an original Petition for Certiorari with the CA, on the contention that the
RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in granting Genoveva's motion to exclude/drop her
from the case.

The CA dismissed the petition for being tardy and for failing to attach thereto relevant
documents and pleadings. But, on motion for reconsideration, the petition was reinstated.
Genoveva took no action to question the reinstatement.

On July 29, 2013, the CA issued the assailed Decision granting the Republic's Petition for
Certiorari.
The Republic contends that the RTC was gravely erroneous in granting the Motion to Exclude
filed by Tan since the same should have been filed before the filing of an Answer and not at that
late stage of the proceedings. 

The instant Petition was thus instituted.

On December 31, 2016, Tan passed away at the age of 82. Her heirs are thus properly substituted
in these proceedings.

ISSUES:

Whether or not the Motion to Exclude was no longer appropriate at the late stage of the
proceedings?

Whether or not Tan should be dropped from the case?

With Genoveva Tan’s death, should the Civil Case be dismissed?

HELD:

NO. The Court dismiss Republic's contention that the Motion to Exclude was no longer
appropriate at the late stage of the proceedings since it is categorically provided under Section
11, Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, that a misjoined party may be dropped by the
court at any stage of the proceedings and such act does not even require a motion from any party
since it may be done by the court on its motion.

NO. The facts reveal that when the CA overturned its own March30, 2011 Resolution dismissing
the Republic's Petition for Certiorari for being tardy and lacking in the requisite attachments and
thus reinstated the same, Tan took no action to question the reinstatement. She did not move to
reconsider; nor did she come to this Court for succor. Instead, she allowed the proceedings
before the CA to continue, and is only now - at this stage - raising the propriety of the
reinstatement, after participating in the whole process before the CA. This cannot be
countenanced. As correctly ruled by the CA, Tan may not, after participating in the proceedings
before it, later question its disposition when it turns out to be unfavorable to her cause.

The CA denied Genoveva's plea to be dropped as defendant in Civil Case No. 02-102639
because it found - by meticulous consideration of the extant evidence - that Genoveva was "the
principal orchestrator" of the scheme to use spurious TCCs to pay Mannequin's1995-1997 duties
and taxes; that such a finding was based on positive testimony of a witness presented in court;
that documentary evidence pointed to Genoveva's significant participation in Mannequin's affairs
during the time material to the suit; and that all the other defendants to the case seemed to have
absconded and suspiciously waived all their rights and properties in the country in favor of
Genoveva, who was then dropped from the suit
NOTES: Obiter - With Genoveva's death, Civil Case No. 02-102639 need not be dismissed. The
action against her survives as it is one to recover damages for an injury to the State. Rule 87,
Section1 of the Rules of Court enumerates actions that survive against a decedent's executors or
administrators, and they are: (1) actions to recover real and personal property from the estate;(2)
actions to enforce a lien thereon; and (3) actions to recover damages for an injury to person or
property.

Case #5
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. APO CEMENT CORPORATION
G.R. No. 193381, February 8, 2017
LEONEN, J.:

FACTS:

In this case, the respondent raised the procedural issue of defective verification.

ISSUE:

WON the petition of the petitioner is defective?

HELD: Yes.

Through the Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping attached to the present
Petition, Deputy Commissioner Sales of the Legal and Inspection Group of the Bureau of
Internal Revenue states that the contents of the Petition are true and correct of her own
"knowledge and belief based on authentic records."30

In the Court's Resolution, the petitioner was directed to submit a sufficient verification within
five (5) days from notice. Petitioner did not comply.

Petitioner would argue however that while the verification still stated "belief," it was qualified by
"based on authentic records." Hence, "the statement implies that the contents of the petition were
based not only on the pleader's belief but ultimately they are recitals from authentic records."32

We are not persuaded.

The amendment to Section 4, Rule 7 entirely removed any reference to "belief" as basis. 33 This is
to ensure that the pleading is anchored on facts and not on imagination or speculation, and is
filed in good faith.

In Go v. Court of Appeals:34

Mere belief is insufficient basis and negates the verification which should be on the basis of
personal knowledge or authentic records. Verification is required to secure an assurance that the
allegations of the petition have been made in good faith, or are true and correct and not merely
speculative.35
To emphasize this further, the third paragraph of Rule 7, Section 4 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, as amended, expressly treats pleadings with a verification based on "information and
belief' or "knowledge, information and belief," as unsigned.36

In Negros Oriental Planters Association, Inc. v. Hon. Presiding Judge of RTC-Negros

Occidental, the Court explained that the amendment in the rules was made stricter so that a party
cannot be allowed to base his statements on his belief. Otherwise, the pleading is treated as
unsigned which produces no legal effect. The court, though, in its discretion, may give the party
a chance to remedy the insufficiency.

Unlike, however, the requirement for a Certification against Forum Shopping in Section 5,
wherein failure to comply with the requirements is not curable by amendment of the complaint
or other initiatory pleading, Section 4 of Rule 7, as amended, states that the effect of the failure
to properly verify a pleading is that the pleading shall be treated as unsigned:

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.

Unsigned pleadings are discussed in the immediately preceding section of Rule 7:

SEC. 3. Signature and address. - ....

An unsigned pleading produces no legal effect. However, the court may, in its discretion, allow
such deficiency to be remedied if it shall appear that the same was due to mere inadvertence and
not intended for delay. Counsel who deliberately files an unsigned pleading, or signs a pleading
in violation of this Rule, or alleges scandalous or indecent matter therein, or fails to promptly
report to the court a change of his address, shall be subject to appropriate disciplinary action. (5a)

A pleading, therefore, wherein the Verification is merely based on the party's knowledge and
belief produces no legal effect, subject to the discretion of the court to allow the deficiency to
be remedied.38

In this case, petitioner did not submit a corrected verification despite the order of this Court. This
alone merits the denial of the Petition outright.
Case #6
CORDILLERA GLOBAL NETWORK, vs. SECRETARY RAMON J.P. PAJE
G.R. No. 215988, April 10, 2019
LEONEN, J.:

FACTS:
In this case, the DENR issued the Environmental Compliance Certificate to SM Investments
Corporation for its SM Pines Resort Project. The DENR-Cordillera Administrative Region, with
clearance from then DENR Secretary Paje, granted SM Investments Corporation's request for a
permit to cut and earth-ball the trees that would be affected by the Expansion Project.

On February 27, 2012, Cordillera Global Network filed a Complaint 16 (first environmental case)
against SM Investments Corporation, Secretary Paje, Atty. Juan Miguel Cuna, the director of the
Environmental Management Bureau, and Secretary Singson of the DPWH.

The first environmental case prayed, among others, that a temporary environmental protection
order be immediately issued to enjoin SM Investments Corporation from cutting and/or earth-
balling the 182 Benguet pine and Alnus trees on Luneta Hill.

On April 13, 2012, Judy Lyn Adajar and 75 other concerned Baguio City residents (Adajar, et
al.) filed a new Complaint (the second environmental case) against SM Supermalls, SM Prime
Holdings, Inc., and Regional Executive Director Baguilat.

The two (2) environmental cases and the contempt petition were consolidated.29

Cordillera Global Network and Adajar, et al. both alleged that the cutting or earth-balling of the
182 trees on Luneta Hill would severely damage the environment and health of Baguio City
residents. They also assailed the regularity of the permits issued, further claiming that the
Expansion Project violated zoning and environmental laws.

The trial court ruled that there was no reason to prevent SM Investments Corporation and it's
subsidiaries from pushing through with the Expansion Project. The Court of Appeals denied the
appeals and upheld the findings of the Regional Trial Court.

ISSUE:

WON the Petition should be dismissed for having a defective verification and certification
against forum shopping;

HELD:
NO. In providing the formal requirements of an appeal by certiorari filed under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court, Section 1 requires that a verified petition raising only questions of law may be
filed before this Court:

SECTION 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court. — A party desiring to appeal

by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the
Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other courts whenever authorized by law, may file
with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition shall raise only
questions of law which must be distinctly set forth. (Emphasis supplied)

The requirements for verification can be found in Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules of Civil
Procedure:

SECTION 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 knowledge and belief.

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.

Rule 45, Section 4(e) further provides that the petition should "contain a sworn certification
against forum shopping as provided in the last paragraph of Section 2, Rule 42." Rule 42, Section
2 provides:

SECTION 2. Form and contents. — The petition shall be filed in seven (7) legible copies, with
the original copy intended for the court being indicated as such by the petitioner, and shall (a)
state the full names of the parties to the case, without impleading the lower courts or judges
thereof either as petitioners or respondents; (b) indicate the specific material dates showing that it
was filed on time; (c) set forth concisely a statement of the matters involved, the issues raised,
the specification of errors of fact or law, or both, allegedly committed by the Regional Trial
Court, and the reasons or arguments relied upon for the allowance of the appeal; (d) be
accompanied by clearly legible duplicate originals or true copies of the judgments or final orders
of both lower courts, certified correct by the clerk of court of the Regional Trial Court, the
requisite number of plain copies thereof and of the pleadings and other material portions of the
record as would support the allegations of the petition.

The petitioner shall also submit together with the petition a certification under oath 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. (Emphasis supplied)

Finally, Rule 45, Section 589 sets forth that the petitioner's failure to comply with any of the
enumerated formal requirements is sufficient ground for the petition's dismissal.

Private respondents SM Prime Holdings, Inc. and Shopping Center Management Corporation
assert that the Petition should be dismissed outright for its defective Verification and
Certification Against Forum Shopping.90 It points out that of the 202 or so claimed petitioners,
only 30 actually signed the document. Further, two (2) of the 30 signatories were not even
plaintiffs in either the first or second environmental case before the Regional Trial Court.91

Private respondents SM Prime Holdings, Inc. and Shopping Center Management Corporation are
mistaken.

This Court, as emphasized in Altres v. Empleo,92 has consistently applied the substantial

compliance rule when it comes to a supposedly defective verification and certification against
forum shopping attached to a petition. Altres, citing Tan v. Ballena,93 mentioned that the purpose
of a verification was to assure this Court that a petition contains allegations that are true, and that
it was filed in good faith. Thus, the signing of the verification by some petitioners already served
the purpose contemplated by the verification. 94 However, when it comes to the certification
against forum shopping, Altres ruled that the non-signing petitioners shall be dropped from the
petition:

In the present case, the signing of the verification by only 11 out of the 59 petitioners already
sufficiently assures the Court that the allegations in the pleading are true and correct and not the
product of the imagination or a matter of speculation; that the pleading is filed in good faith; and
that the signatories are unquestionably real parties-in-interest who undoubtedly have sufficient
knowledge and belief to swear to the truth of the allegations in the petition.

With respect to petitioners' certification against forum shopping, the failure of the other
petitioners to sign as they could no longer be contacted or are no longer interested in pursuing
the case need not merit the outright dismissal of the petition without defeating the administration
of justice. The non-signing petitioners are, however, dropped as parties to the
case.95 (Emphasis in the original)

Altres then provided guidelines, as culled from jurisprudence, on lhw to resolve noncompliance

with the requirement and defective submissions of verification and certification against forum
shopping:

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.96 (Citations omitted)

Here, there were around 200 petitioners in the two (2) environmental cases on appeal before this
Court; yet, only 30 petitioners signed the Verification and Certification Against Forum
Shopping.

However, contrary to private respondents SM Prime Holdings, Inc. and Shopping Center
Management Corporation's assertions, the failure of all petitioners to sign the document is not a
sufficient ground for the Petition's outright dismissal. Jurisprudence confirms that petitioners
substantially complied with the verification requirement. The 30 signatories provided the
guarantee that: (1) they had ample knowledge as to the truth of the allegations in the Petition;
and (2) the Petition was made in good faith.For the certification against forum
shopping, Altres stated the general rule that non-signing petitioners will be dropped as parties to
the case. Nonetheless, there is an exception: when all petitioners share a common interest, the
signature of one (1) petitioner in the certification against forum shopping is enough to satisfy the
substantial compliance rule.97

Here, petitioners all share a common interest, which is to declare the cutting or earth-balling of
the trees affected by the Expansion Project illegal. Hence, the signature of 30 petitioners to the
certification against forum shopping amounts to substantial compliance with the requirement
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.