Uy v. CA (G.R. No. 173186, September 16, 2015; Jardeleza, J.
;3rd Division)
Doctrine: As the general rule, non-compliance or a defect in the certification is not curable by its
subsequent submission or correction. However, there are cases where the Court exercised leniency and
relaxed the rules on the ground of substantial compliance, the presence of special circumstances or
compelling reasons.
Facts:
a. Carmencita Naval-Sai acquired ownership of parcel of land from her brother. The land was later
subdivided into to two. Lot 1 was sold to Adil on installment basis. Adil failed to pay the
amortization, forcing him to sell his unfinished building on the property to spouses Omandac.
b. Meanwhile, Carmencita borrowed money from Aniceto Uy and secured the 2 lots to guaranteed
the payment of the loan. Thereafter, Carmencita learned that Ancenito Uy filed a case for
recovery of possession against the spouses Omandac before the RTC in Kidapawan City. RTC
ruled in favor of Aniceto.
c. Carmencita filed a Complaint for Annulment of Deed with Damages before the same court of RTC
in Kidapawan City against Anecito Uy on the ground that her signature in the purported deed of
sale was a forgery. Thereafter, Carmencita filed an amended complaint and asserted that the
subjects TCTs of the lots were already cancelled by virtue of the deed of sale. Unlike the original
complaint, however, the Amended Complaint was not signed by Carmencita, but by her counsel.
d. Anecito in his answer raised special and affirmative defenses of, among others, non-compliance
with the requisite certification of non-forum shopping. He asserted that the jurisdiction has never
been acquired over the parties and the subject matter because the certification against forum
shoppping in the Amended Complaint was defective, for having been merely signed by
Carmencita’s counsel. The RTC dismissed the case.
e. CA set aside the order of the RTC and ruled that there was substantial compliance with the
requirement of verification and certification of non-forum shopping.
Issue: Whether or not to dismiss a petition on the ground that the certification was signed only by
counsel.
Ruling:
No. There was substantial compliance with the requirements on certification against forum shopping.
The Court find that the prima facie merits of the case serve as a special circumstance or a compelling
reason to relax the rules on certification against forum shopping.
As the general rule, non-compliance or a defect in the certification is not curable by its subsequent
submission or correction. However, there are cases where the Court exercised leniency and relaxed the
rules on the ground of substantial compliance, the presence of special circumstances or compelling
reasons. The rules on forum-shopping are designed to promote and facilitate the orderly administration
of justice and "should not be interpreted with such absolute literalness as to subvert its own ultimate and
legitimate objective or the goal of all rules of procedure which is to achieve substantial justice as
expeditiously as possible."
A certification against forum shopping is a peculiar and personal responsibility of the party, an assurance
given to the court or other tribunal that there are no other pending cases involving basically the same
parties, issues and causes of action. It 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 (SPA) designating his counsel of record to sign on his behalf.
Here, the original complaint contained a proper verification and certification against forum shopping duly
signed by Carmencita as plaintiff. The verification and certification in the amended complaint, on the
other hand, was only signed by her counsel, Atty. Ela. However, Atty. Ela was not authorized to sign on
behalf of Carmencita Naval-Sai, as in fact, she assigned one Rodolfo Florentino as agent. The court find,
however, that the cautionary move found by the CA as the reason for its substantial compliance is
ineffectual because under the Rules of Civil Procedure, an amended complaint supersedes the original
complaint. For all intents and purposes, therefore, the original complaint and its verification and
certification ceased to exist. This, notwithstanding, that in this case the Court find there was still
substantial compliance with the Rules.
