Panopio, Mikee Angela A.

Parts and Contents of A Pleading

1. What pleadings are allowed under the 1991 Rules of Summary Procedure? (5 pts.)

Under Section 3(A), II of the 1991 Rules of Summary Procedure, the pleadings
that are only allowed are the following:
a.) Complaint;
b.) Compulsory counterclaim pleaded in the answer;
c.) Cross-claim pleaded in the answer; and
d.) Answers thereto.

2. What pleadings are allowed under The Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases? (5
pts.)

Section 6 of the Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases provides that there
are no other formal pleading necessary to initiate a small claims action. A small claims
action is commenced by filing with the court an accomplished and verified Statement of
Claim instead of filing a complaint or pleading (A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC). Also, Section 12
and 13 of the same provision states that the defendant shall file a verified Response with
the court instead of filing an Answer. A counterclaim in the Response must be filed when
the defendant has any claim against the plaintiff as provided under Section 15 of the
Rules of Procedure For Small Claims Cases.

3. What should the caption contain? (2 pts.)

The Rules provide that a caption shall contain the following:

a.) name of the court;
b.) title of the action; and
c.) docket number, if assigned (Section 1, Rule 7, Rules of Court).

4. What should the title of the action contain? (3 pts.)

According to Section 1, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, the title of the action
indicates the names of the parties. They shall be named in the original complaint or
information; but in subsequent pleadings, it shall be sufficient if the name of the first
party on each side be stated with an appropriate indication when there are other parties
and their respective participation as well.

5. What should the body of the pleading contain? (5 pts.)

 The Rules state that the body of a pleading shall contain its designation, the
allegation of the party’s claims or defenses, the relief prayed for, and the date of the
pleading. The allegation of the part’s claims shall be divided into paragraphs and shall
be numbered to be readily identified. For purposes of convenience, each paragraph shall
contain a statement of a single set of circumstances and be numbered in all subsequent
pleadings (Section 2, Rule 7, Rules of Court). Under Section 2(c) of Rule 7, the relief
sought may be specific or general prayer as may be deemed just and equitable. Section
2(d) also provides that all pleadings must be dated.

6. Who should sign the pleading? (2 pts.)

The plaintiff or counsel representing him, stating in either case his address which
should not be a post office box, must sign a pleading (Section 3, Rule 7 of Rules of
Court). The Rules also provide that the service upon the parties must be made at the
last address of their counsel of record if there is a failure to give proper notice to the
court of a change of address.

7. If the counsel for the party signs the pleading, what does the counsel certify? (5 pts.)

Under Section 3, Rule 7, the signature of the counsel certifies that he has read
the pleading; that to the best of his knowledge, information and belief, there is good
ground to support it, and that it is not interposed for delay. The signature in a pleading is
an integral part of such in order to have a legal effect. It is a general rule under the
provision cited above that an unsigned pleading produces no legal effect.

8. What are the consequences if the counsel violates the requirements in number (5)? (5
pts.)

Section 3, Rule 7 also provides for the consequences when a counsel violates
the requirements under the said provision which is failure to affix his signature to the
pleading. The Rule clearly states that a pleading is required to be signed by the party or
counsel representing him. The counsel’s duty to sign a pleading is personal to him and
constitutes legal work involving practice of law that is reserved to the members of the
bar. Failure to comply with this requirement produces no legal effect to the pleading.
Also, as the Rule so provides, the said counsel shall be sanctioned to a disciplinary
action if found violating the requirements in the following instances:
a.) when he deliberately files an unsigned pleading;
b.) when he signs a pleading in violation of the Rules;
c.) when he alleges in the pleading scandalous or indecent matter; or
d.) when he fails to promptly report to the court a change to his address.

9. What is a verification in a pleading? (5 pts.)

 In a pleading, Section 4, Rule 7 provides that a verification is the act of the affiant
verifying such pleading by an affidavit stating that he has read it and that the allegations
therein are true and correct of his personal knowledge or based on authentic records.
The pleading must be only based on facts not on mere imagination filed in good faith;
otherwise, it shall be considered as an unsigned pleading. Under the Rules, the pleading
is deemed substantially complied with when one who has an ample knowledge to swear
to the truth of the allegations in the complaint signs the verification that is made in good
faith.

10. Should all pleadings be verified? If not, in what instances should the pleading be
verified? What is the effect when the pleading is unverified when required to do so? (8
pts.)

No. An exception to the general rule provides that pleadings need not be under
oath, verified or accompanied by affidavit when specifically required by law or rule
(Section 4, Rule 7, Rules of Court). It includes statement of a claim in small claims
cases, pleadings in forcible entry and unlawful detainer, petitions for certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus, petition for quo warranto and a complaint in an
environmental case which all requires a verification.

11. What is a Certification Against Forum Shopping and what are its contents? (5 pts.)

Under Section 5 of Rule 7, the certification against forum shopping is a sworn

statement in which the plaintiff or principal party certifies in a complaint or initiatory
pleading the following matters:

a.) that he has not commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same
issues in any court and that no issues are pending therein;

b.) that if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the
present status thereof; and

c.) that 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 days therefrom to the
court wherein his complaint has been filed.

12. Who should sign the Certification Against Forum Shopping? If the party is a juridical
person, how can it satisfy the required Certification? (5 pts.)
 Section 5 of Rule 7 states that the Certification Against Forum Shopping must be
signed by the plaintiff or principal party. The party-pleader must execute the certification
under oath and not by his counsel. If unable to sign for justifiable reasons, the party-
pleader must execute a special power of attorney designating his counsel of record to
sign on his behalf. For juridical persons such as corporations, there must be an
authorized representative selected or authorized collectively by the board of directors as
the Corporation Code so provides. However, the Court has considered a Secretary’s
Certificate sufficient proof of authority for a person named to represent a corporation in a
suit.

13. When is it required to attach the Certification Against Forum Shopping? What happens if
the party fails to attach the said Certification? (5 pts.)

A Certification Against Forum Shopping is required to be attached in every

complaint or initiatory pleading as a mandatory requirement. The failure to submit a
certification against forum shopping is a ground for dismissal. Compliance with the
certification against forum shopping is separate and distinct from forum shopping as a
ground for dismissal. Non compliance with this mandatory requirement or a defect in the
certification is not curable by its subsequent submission or correction except under
special circumstances. Objections on matters regarding noncompliance with the
certification should be raised in the proceedings and not for the first time on appeal.

14. What is forum shopping? (5 pts.)

In the case of Ortigas and Company Limited Partnership vs. Velasco and other
numerous cases, Forum shopping is defined as the act by a party of repetitively availing
of several judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or successively, raising
the same issues either pending or already resolved adversely by some other court.
These remedies availed are all substantially founded on the same transactions and
specifically when the reliefs prayed for are found on the same essential facts or
circumstances. Forum shopping also exists when the identity of the parties represent the
same interests in both actions and that the judgement rendered in a pending case would
amount to res judicata.

15. Ms. Corales and Ms. Mercado are residents of Batangas City, Batangas. Ms. Corales
executed a Special Power of Attorney in favor of Ms. Mercado. In gist, the Special Power
of Attorney states that Ms. Corales authorizes Ms. Mercado to: (a) To ask, demand and
claim any sum of money that is duly [due] from any person natural, juridical and/or
corporation in the Philippines; (b) To file criminal and/or civil complaints before the courts
of justice in the Philippines to enforce my rights and interest[s]; (c) To attend hearings
and/or Preliminary Conference[s], to make stipulations, adjust claims, to settle and/or
enter into Compromise Agreement[s], to litigate and to terminate such proceedings; and;
(d) To sign all papers, documents and pleadings necessary for the accomplishment of
the above purposes. Ms. Corales, represented by Ms. Mercado, filed an action for
collection for sum of money against Mr. Perez in the Regional Trial Court of Batangas
City. The Certification Against Forum Shopping that is attached to the Complaint was
signed by Ms. Mercado. Mr. Perez filed an Answer and raised as a defense, among
others, that the Certification Against Forum Shopping is defective because: (1) Ms.
Mercado was not authorized specifically to sign in behalf of Ms. Corales to sign the said
Certification; and (2) there is no justification for Ms. Corales to execute the Special
Power of Attorney since both of them are still living in Batangas City. Should the
Regional Trial Court dismiss the case on the ground that the Certification Against Forum
Shopping is allegedly defective? Explain. (10 pts.)

Yes. The Court can dismiss the case on the ground of defective Certification
Against Forum Shopping. This defect is not curable by the Court when there is no
presence of special circumstances or compelling reasons.

Corollary with the power to institute both civil and criminal actions against any
actions, Ms. Mercado is also given the power and authority to sign all papers,
documents, and pleadings necessary for the accomplishment of the said purpose or
necessarily connected with the filing of the complaint. Although given those power and
authority, Rule 7, Section 5 of the Rules of Court requires that the certification should be
signed by the petitioner or principal party himself. It must be executed by the party-
pleader, and not by his counsel. Unless there are justifiable reasons, the party-pleader
must execute a Special Power of Attorney.

In the case of Spouses Wee vs. Galvez, the court ruled that the attorney-in-fact
authorized to sign the Certificate for Non-Forum Shopping is allowed since the
respondent was no longer a resident of the Philippines. However, in this case, there are
no special circumstances or compelling reasons to allow the attorney-in-fact to
personally sign the Certification instead of the respondent. The Special Power of
Attorney executed to Ms. Mercado to file and prosecute suits on behalf of the
respondent who resides in the same city with the latter shows no justifiable reason to
sign the Certification. Under the circumstances, there has been no proper compliance
with the rule under forum shopping. Thus, the Regional Trial Court can dismiss the case
since the act of Ms. Mercado constitutes a defective Certification Against Forum
Shopping.
16. Mr. Calaguas, Mr. Marzo and Mr. Buenafe are co-owners of a condominium unit located
in Manila. They leased the unit to Mr. Relacion. Two years later, Mr. Relacion started to
default on his rental payments. The co-owners sent a demand letter to Mr. Relacion to
vacate the premises and to pay the outstanding rentals. However, Mr. Relacion refused
to heed to their demands. Hence, the co-owners filed a Complaint for Ejectment in the
Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila. However, the attached Certification Against Forum
Shopping was signed only by Mr. Calaguas. Mr. Relacion filed an Answer and raised as
a defense, among others, that the Certification Against Forum Shopping is defective.
Should the MTC of Manila dismiss the case based on this defense? Explain. (10 pts.)

No. The Metropolitan Trial Courty of Manila cannot dismiss the case on the
ground of defective Certification Against Forum Shopping due to the failure of the other
co-owners to sign the said Certificate.

Where a property is the subject matter of the suit, the failure of the other co-
owners to sign the Certificate of Forum shopping is not fatal, as the signing by only one
or some of them constitutes substantial compliance of the rule. Although as a general
rule, the certification against forum shopping must be signed by all plaintiffs or
petitioners in a case, the signature of only one of them substantially complies with the
Rule if the said plaintiffs share a common interest and invoke a common cause of action
or defense.

Thus, the signature of only one co-owner in the certification against non forum
shopping which is Mr. Calaguas’ in the case at bar, cannot be treated as a defective
certificate. Mr. Calaguas’ signature shows that there is substantial compliance with the
Rule since he invokes the same cause of action with the other co-owners against Mr.
Relacion which is to vacate the premises and pay the outstanding rentals.

17. Mr. Lapuz filed an illegal dismissal case against Crayola, Inc., a corporation organized
and existing under Philippine laws, in the Labor Arbiter. After the submission of position
papers, the Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision in favor of Mr. Lapuz and ordered the
reinstatement of Mr. Lapuz and awarded unpaid wages in his favor. Crayola appealed
the Decision in the National Labor Relations Commission (“NLRC”). The NLRC affirmed
the Decision of the Labor Arbiter. Crayola filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but the
NLRC denied the said Motion. Crayola filed a Petition for Certiorari in the Court of
Appeals. The Certification Against Forum Shopping attached to the said Petition was
signed by the President of Crayola, Ms. Hermoso. Mr. Lapuz filed a Motion to Dismiss
Petition for Certiorari on the ground that the Certification Against Forum Shopping is
defective because it does not contain any document to show that Crayola authorized Ms.
Hermoso to sign the said Certification. Ten days after the filing of the Motion, Crayola
filed a Motion for Leave to File Attached Secretary’s Certificate and attached to the said
 Motion the Secretary’s Certificate containing a board resolution authorizing Ms. Hermoso
to sign the Certification Against Forum Shopping. Mr. Lapuz opposed to the said Motion
arguing that it was too late to submit the Secretary’s Certificate. Should the Court of
Appeals dismiss the Petition based on the ground that the Certificate Against Forum
Shopping is defective? Explain. (10 pts.)

No. The Court of Appeals cannot dismiss the Petition for Certiorari based on the
ground that Certificate Against Forum Shopping is defective.

The general rule in a case where a juridical entity is the one to sign a
certification, a board resolution is required in order to have corporate powers to execute
the same. However, an exception to the rule in the ruling of Cagayan Valley Drug
Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, shows that the officials of a
company such as the President of the corporation can sign the certification against
forum shopping without the need of board resolution. The Secretary’s Certificate is no
longer required to be obtained from a board resolution since the authority of the
President of the Corporation already vests in him the corporate power to execute the
Certification Against Non Forum Shopping.

Thus, in the case at bar, Ms. Hermoso, as the President of the corporation, is in
the position to verify the truthfulness and correctness of the allegations in the said
petition. The contention of Mr. Lapuz that the Certification is defective due to late
submission of the Secretary’s Certificate is misplaced since the latter document is no
longer required given the authority conferred to a President of a corporation to execute
the same.

18. In addition to Nos. 3, 4 & 5, what are the contents of a pleading? (5 pts.)

In addition to the parts of a pleading, it must also contain and only aver ultimate
facts and not allege conclusions. Ultimate facts are such in a character that is essential
to a party’s cause of action or defense. However, Section 1, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court
provides that mere evidentiary facts are prohibited as averments in a pleading because it
is only presented during the trial of the case. An exception to the general rule on matters
relating to evidentiary facts, evidence is allowed to be attached to complaints in an
environmental case, in small claims cases, and forcible entry and unlawful detainer
cases (Section 5, Rule 70, Rules of Court).