SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 339 23/08/2019, 9*55 PM

VOL. 339, SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 685

Soller vs. Commission on Elections
*
G.R. No. 139853. September 5, 2000.

FERDINAND THOMAS M. SOLLER, petitioner, vs.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT OF PINAMALAYAN, ORIENTAL MINDORO
(Branch 42) and ANGEL M. SAULONG, respondents.

Election Law; Jurisdiction; Commission on Elections; Election

Contests; The authority to resolve petitions for certiorari involving
incidental issues of election protest falls within the divisions of the
COMELEC and not the COMELEC en banc; If the principal case,
once decided on its merits, is cognizable on appeal by a division of
the COMELEC, then, there is no reason why petitions for certiorari
relating to incidents of election protest should not be referred first to
a division of the COMELEC for resolution.·As can be gleaned from
the proceedings aforestated, petitionerÊs petition with the
COMELEC was not referred to a division of that Commission but
was, instead, submitted directly to the Commission en banc. The
petition for certiorari assails the trial courtÊs order denying the
motion to dismiss private respondentÊs election protest. The
questioned order of the trial court is interlocutory because it does
not end the trial courtÊs task of adjudicating the partiesÊ contentions
and determining their rights and liabilities as regards each other.
In our view, the authority to resolve petition for certiorari involving
incidental issues of election protest, like the questioned order of the
trial court, falls within the division of the COMELEC and not on
the COMELEC en banc. Note that the order denying the motion to
dismiss is but an incident of the election protest. If the principal
case, once decided on the merits, is cognizable on appeal by a
division of the COMELEC, then, there is no reason why petitions
for certiorari relating to incidents of election protest should not be
referred first to a division of the COMELEC for resolution. Clearly,

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cbebe3e4e536a6cb0003600fb002c009e/p/AQS370/?username=Guest Page 1 of 14
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 339 23/08/2019, 9*55 PM

the COMELEC en banc

_______________

* EN BANC.

686

686 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Soller vs. Commission on Elections

acted without jurisdiction in taking cognizance of petitionerÊs

petition in the first instance.

Same; Same; Docket Fees; A court acquires jurisdiction over any

case only upon the payment of the prescribed docket fee.·Close
scrutiny of the receipts will show that private respondent failed to
pay the filing fee of P300.00 for his protest as prescribed by the
COMELEC rules. The amount of P368.00 for which OR 7023752
was issued for the Judiciary Development Fund as shown by the
entries in the cash book of the clerk of court. Thus, only P32.00 with
OR 7022478 credited to the general fund could be considered as
filing fee paid by private respondent for his protest. A court acquires
jurisdiction over any case only upon the payment of the prescribed
docket fee. Patently, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over
private respondentÊs election protest. Therefore, COMELEC gravely
erred in not ordering the dismissal of private respondentÊs protest
case.

Same; Same; Errors in the payment of filing fees in election

cases is no longer excusable.·Errors in the payment of filing fees in
election cases is no longer excusable. And the dismissal of the
present case for that reason is, in our view, called for.

Same; Pleadings and Practice; Verification; Where the petitioner

failed to state in his verification that the contents of the election
protest are trite and correct of his own personal knowledge, said
petition lacks proper verification and should be treated as an

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cbebe3e4e536a6cb0003600fb002c009e/p/AQS370/?username=Guest Page 2 of 14
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 339 23/08/2019, 9*55 PM

unsigned pleading and must be dismissed.·There is another reason

to dismiss private respondentÊs election protest. We note that the
verification of aforesaid protest is defective. In the verification,
private respondent merely stated that he caused the preparation of
his petition and he has read and understood all the allegations
therein. Certainly, this is insufficient as private respondent failed to
state that the contents of his election protest are true and correct of
his personal knowledge. Since the petition lacks proper verification,
it should be treated as an unsigned pleading and must be
dismissed.

Same; Same; Certification against Non-Forum Shopping; An

election protestantÊs belief that he no longer had a pending case
before the COMELEC because he deemed it abandoned upon filing
of his protest is not a valid reason for non-disclosure of the pendency
of said pre-proclamation case; Before the dismissal of a pre-
proclamation case, the same is legally still pending resolution; The
requirement to file a certificate of non-forum shopping is mandatory,
and failure to comply with this requirement cannot be excused by the
fact that a party is not guilty of forum shopping.·Private
respondentÊs belief that he no longer had a pending case before the

687

VOL. 339, SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 687

Soller vs. Commission on Elections

COMELEC because he deemed it abandoned upon filing of his

protest is not a valid reason for non-disclosure of the pendency of
said preproclamation case. Note that the COMELEC dismissed
private respondentÊs pre-proclamation case only on July 3, 1998.
Before the dismissal, said case was legally still pending resolution.
Similarly, the fact that private respondentÊs protest was not based
on the same cause of action as his pre-proclamation case is not a
valid excuse for not complying with the required disclosure in the
certification against forum shopping. The requirement to file a
certificate of non-forum shopping is mandatory. Failure to comply
with this requirement cannot be excused by the fact that a party is
not guilty of forum shopping. The rule applies to any complaint,
petition, application or other initiatory pleading, regardless of

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cbebe3e4e536a6cb0003600fb002c009e/p/AQS370/?username=Guest Page 3 of 14
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 339 23/08/2019, 9*55 PM

whether the party filing it has actually committed forum shopping.

Every party filing any initiatory pleading is required to swear
under oath that he has not and will not commit forum shopping.
Otherwise we would have an absurd situation, as in this case,
where the parties themselves would be the judge of whether their
actions constitute a violation of the rule, and compliance therewith
would depend on their belief that they might or might not have
violated the requirement. Such interpretation of the requirement
would defeat the very purpose of the rule.

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court.

Certiorari.

The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.

De Mesa and Ochoa Law Offices for petitioner.
Brillantes, Navarro, Jumamil, Arcilla, Escolin and
Martinez Law Offices for private respondent.

RESOLUTION

QUISUMBING, J.:

This special civil action for certiorari seeks to annul the

resolution promulgated on August 31, 1999, in COMELEC
special relief case SPR No. 10-99. The resolution dismissed
petitionerÊs petition to set aside the orders of the Regional
Trial Court of Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro, dated
October 1, 1998 and February 1, 1999, which denied
petitionerÊs motion to dismiss the election protest filed by
private respondent against petitioner and the motion for
reconsideration, respectively.

688

688 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Soller vs. Commission on Elections

Petitioner and private respondent were both candidates for

mayor of the municipality of Bansud, Oriental Mindoro in
the May 11, 1998 elections. On May 14, 1998, the
municipal board of canvassers proclaimed petitioner

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cbebe3e4e536a6cb0003600fb002c009e/p/AQS370/?username=Guest Page 4 of 14
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 339 23/08/2019, 9*55 PM

Ferdinand Thomas Soller duly elected mayor.

On May 19, 1998, private respondent Angel Saulong
filed with the COMELEC a „petition for annulment
1
of the
proclamation/exclusion of election return.‰ On May 25,
1998, private respondent filed with the Regional Trial
Court of Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro, an election
protest against petitioner docketed as EC-31-98.
On June 15, 1998, petitioner filed his answer with
counterprotest. Petitioner also moved to dismiss private
respondentÊs protest on the ground of lack of jurisdiction,
2
forum-shopping, and failure to state cause of action.
On July 3, 1998, COMELEC dismissed the pre-
proclamation case filed by private respondent.
On October 1, 1998, the trial court denied petitionerÊs
motion to dismiss. Petitioner moved for reconsideration but
said motion was denied. Petitioner then filed with the
COMELEC a petition for certiorari contending that
respondent RTC acted without or in excess of jurisdiction
or with grave abuse of discretion in not dismissing private
respondentÊs election protest.
On August 31, 1999, the COMELEC en banc dismissed
petitionerÊs suit. The election tribunal held that private
respondent paid the required filing fee. It also declared
that the defect in the verification is a mere technical defect
which should not bar the determination of the merits of the
case. The election tribunal stated that there was no forum
shopping to speak of.
Under the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, a motion for
reconsideration of its en banc ruling is 3prohibited except in
a case involving an election offense. Since the present
controversy involves no elec-

_______________

1 Rollo, pp. 72-81.

2 Id. at 87-100, 114-117.
3 Section 1(d), Rule 13, 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure, as
amended.

689

VOL. 339, SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 689

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cbebe3e4e536a6cb0003600fb002c009e/p/AQS370/?username=Guest Page 5 of 14
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 339 23/08/2019, 9*55 PM

Soller vs. Commission on Elections

tion offense, reconsideration is not possible and petitioner

has no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in
the ordinary course of law. Accordingly, petitioner properly
filed the instant petition for certiorari with this Court.
On September 21, 1999, we required the parties to
maintain the status quo ante prevailing as of September 17,
1999, the date of filing of this petition.
Before us, petitioner asserts that the COMELEC
committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction:

[I]

. . . IN AFFIRMING RESPONDENT RTCÊS REFUSAL TO

DISMISS PRIVATE RESPONDENTS ELECTION PROTEST
DESPITE HIS (sic) LACK OF JURISDICTION OVER THE SAME
BY REASON OF THE FAILURE OF THE PRIVATE
RESPONDENT TO PAY ALL THE REQUISITE FILING FEES.

[II]

. . . IN AFFIRMING RESPONDENTÊS RTCÊS REFUSAL TO

DISMISS PRIVATE RESPONDENTS ELECTION PROTEST
DESPITE THE INSUFFICIENCY OF HIS PETITION IN FORM
AND SUBSTANCE AND ITS FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF
ACTION.

[III]

. . . IN AFFIRMING RESPONDENT RTCÊS REFUSAL TO

DISMISS THE ELECTION PROTEST BELOW ON THE
GROUNDS OF FORUMSHOPPING AND FAILURE TO COMPLY
WITH THE SUPREME COURT CIRCULAR REQUIRING A
TRUTHFUL CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING
4
DESPITE INCONTROVERTIBLE EVIDENCE THEREOF.

In our view, notwithstanding petitionerÊs formulation of

issues, the principal question presented for our resolution
is whether or not public respondent COMELEC gravely
abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction in net ordering the dismissal of private
respondentÊs election protest.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cbebe3e4e536a6cb0003600fb002c009e/p/AQS370/?username=Guest Page 6 of 14
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 339 23/08/2019, 9*55 PM

_______________

4 Rollo, p. 28.

690

690 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Soller vs. Commission on Elections

At the outset, even if not squarely raised as an issue, this

Court needs to resolve the question concerning
COMELECÊs jurisdiction. Unless properly resolved, we
cannot proceed further in this case.
Section 3, Subdivision C of Article IX of the Constitution
reads:

„The Commission on Elections may sit en banc or in two divisions,

and shall promulgate its rules of procedure in order to expedite the
disposition of election cases, including pre-proclamation
controversies. All such election cases shall be heard and decided in
division, provided that motions for reconsideration of decision shall
be decided by the Commission en banc.‰
5
Thus, 6 in Sarmiento vs. COMELEC and in subsequent
cases, we ruled that the COMELEC, sitting en banc, does
not have the requisite authority to hear and decide election
cases including preproclamation controversies in the first
instance. This power pertains to the divisions of the
Commission. Any decision by the Commission en banc as
regards election cases decided by it in the first instance is
null and void.
As can be gleaned from the proceedings aforestated,
petitionerÊs petition with the COMELEC was not referred
to a division of that Commission but was, instead,
submitted directly to the Commission en banc. The petition
for certiorari assails the trial courtÊs order denying the
motion to dismiss private respondentÊs election protest. The
questioned order of the trial court is interlocutory because
it does not end the trial courtÊs task of adjudicating the
partiesÊ contentions and determining
7
their rights and
liabilities as regards each other. In our view, the authority
to resolve petition for certiorari involving incidental issues
of election protest, like the questioned order of the trial
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cbebe3e4e536a6cb0003600fb002c009e/p/AQS370/?username=Guest Page 7 of 14
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 339 23/08/2019, 9*55 PM

court, falls within the division of the COMELEC and not on

the COMELEC en banc. Note that the order denying the
motion to dismiss is but an incident of the election protest.
If the principal case, once decided on the merits, is cogni-

_______________

5 212 SCRA 307, 313 (1992).

6 Abad vs. COMELEC, GR-128877, December 10, 1999, 320 SCRA 507;
Zarate vs. COMELEC, GR-129096, November 19, 1999, 318 SCRA 608.
7 Atienza vs. Court of Appeals, 232 SCRA 737, 744 (1994).

691

VOL. 339, SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 691

Soller vs. Commission on Elections

zable on appeal by a division of the COMELEC, then, there

is no reason why petitions for certiorari relating to
incidents of election protest should not be referred first to a
division of the COMELEC for resolution. Clearly, the
COMELEC en banc acted without jurisdiction in taking
cognizance of petitionerÊs petition in the first instance.
Since public respondent COMELEC had acted without
jurisdiction in this case, the petition herein is without
doubt meritorious and has to be granted. But in order to
write finis to the controversy at bar, we are constrained to
also resolve the issues raised by petitioner, seriatim.
Petitioner contends that private respondentÊs protest
should have been dismissed outright as the latter failed to
pay the amount of 8
P300.00 filing fee required under the
COMELEC rules. PetitionerÊs contention is supported by9
Section 9, Rule 35 of the 10COMELEC Rules of Procedure
and corresponding receipts itemized as follows:

P368.00·Filing fee in EC 31-98, O.R. 7023752;

P 32.00·Filing fee in EC 31-98, O.R. 7022478;
P 46.00·Summons fee in EC 31-98, O.R. 7023752;
P 4.00·Summons fee in EC 31-98, O.R. 4167602;
P 10.00·Legal Research Fund fee, O.R. 2595144, and;
P 5.00·Victim Compensation Fund, O.R. 4167979
P465.00

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cbebe3e4e536a6cb0003600fb002c009e/p/AQS370/?username=Guest Page 8 of 14
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 339 23/08/2019, 9*55 PM

Close scrutiny of the receipts will show that private

respondent failed to pay the filing fee of P300.00 for his
protest as prescribed

_______________

8 Id., at 605, 612.

9 Filing fee.·No protest, counter-protest, or protest-in-intervention
shall be given due course without the payment of a filing fee in the
amount of three hundred pesos (P300.00) for each interest.
Each interest shall further pay the legal research fee as required by law.
If a claim for damages and attorneyÊs fees are set forth in a protest,
counter-protest or protest-in-intervention, an additional filing fee shall
be paid in accordance with the schedule provided for in the Rules of
Court of the Philippines.
10 Rollo, pp. 112-113, 229, 271, 315, 331, 333, 404, 407.

692

692 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Soller vs. Commission on Elections

by the COMELEC rules. The amount of P368.00 for which

OR 7023752 was issued for the Judiciary Development
Fund as 11shown by the entries in the cash book of the clerk
of court. Thus, only P32.00 with OR 7022478 credited to
the general fund could be considered as filing fee paid by
private respondent for his protest. A court acquires
jurisdiction over any case
12
only upon the payment of the
prescribed docket fee. Patently, the trial court did not
acquire jurisdiction over private respondentÊs election
protest. Therefore, COMELEC gravely erred in not
ordering the dismissal of private13
respondentÊs protest case.
We have in a string of cases had the occasion to rule on
this matter. In Loyola vs. COMELEC, the clerk of court
assessed private respondent therein the incorrect filing fee
of P32.00 at the time of filing of the election protest. Upon
filing his counterprotest, petitioner was assessed to pay the
same amount. Subsequently, the trial court remedied the
situation by directing the parties to pay the balance of
P268.00. On review, we held that the lapse was not at all
attributable to private respondent and there was

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cbebe3e4e536a6cb0003600fb002c009e/p/AQS370/?username=Guest Page 9 of 14
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 339 23/08/2019, 9*55 PM

substantial compliance with the filing fee requirement. The

error lies in the ClerkÊs misapplication and confusion
regarding application of Section 9 of Rule 35 of the
COMELEC Rules of Procedure and this CourtÊs resolution
dated September 4, 1990 amending Rule 141 of the Rules of
Court. An election protest falls within the exclusive
original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court, in which
case the Rules of Court will apply, and that the COMELEC
Rules of Procedure is primarily intended to govern election
cases before that tribunal. But the Court declared that this
decision must not provide relief to parties in future cases
involving inadequate payment of filing fees in election
cases. Our decisions in Pahilan and Gatchalian bar any
claim of good faith, excusable negligence or mistake in any
failure to pay the full amount of filing fees in election cases.

_______________

11 Id. at 331.
12 Suson vs. Court of Appeals, 278 SCRA 284, 291 (1997).
13 Miranda vs. Castillo, 274 SCRA 503 (1997); Loyola vs. COMELEC,
337 Phil. 134; 270 SCRA 404 (1997); Gatchalian vs. Court of Appeals, 315
Phil. 195; 245 SCRA 208 (1995); Pahilan vs. Tabalba, 230 SCRA 205
(1994).

693

VOL. 339, SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 693

Soller vs. Commission on Elections

In Miranda vs. Castillo, private respondents each paid per

assessment the amount of P465.00 as filing fees. Of this
amount, P414.00 was allocated for the JDF, P10.00 for legal
research fund, P5.00 for victim compensation fee, and only
the amount of P32.00 was regarded as filing fee. The Court
considered the amount as partial payment of the P300.00
filing fee under the COMELEC rules and required payment
of the deficiency in the amount of P268.00. But then again,
the Court reiterated the caveat that in view of Pahilan,
Gatchalian, and Loyola cases we would no longer tolerate
any mistake in the payment of the full amount of filing fees
for election cases filed after the promulgation of the Loyola

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cbebe3e4e536a6cb0003600fb002c009e/p/AQS370/?username=Guest Page 10 of 14
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 339 23/08/2019, 9*55 PM

decision on March 27, 1997.

Clearly then, errors in the payment of filing fees in
election cases is no longer excusable. And the dismissal of
the present case for that reason is, in our view, called for.
Besides, there is another reason to dismiss private
respondentÊs election protest. We note that the verification
of aforesaid protest is defective. In the verification, private
respondent merely stated that he caused the preparation of
his petition and he14 has read and understood all the
allegations therein. Certainly, this is insufficient as
private respondent failed to state that the contents of his
election protest
15
are true and correct of his personal
knowledge. Since the petition lacks proper verification, it
should be 16treated as an unsigned pleading and must be
dismissed.
Further, we find that private respondent did not comply
with the required certification against forum shopping.
Private respondent successively filed a „petition for
annulment of the proclamation/exclusion of election return‰
and an election protest. Yet, he did not disclose in his
election protest that he earlier filed a petition for
annulment of proclamation/exclusion of election returns.

_______________

14 Rollo, p. 85.
15 A.M. No. 00-2-10-SC, effective 1 May 2000 provides that „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 personal knowledge or
based on authentic records.‰
16 Section 4, Rule 7, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

694

694 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Soller vs. Commission on Elections

It could be argued that private respondentÊs petition for

annulment of proclamation/exclusion of election returns
was a preproclamation case. The issues raised in that
petition pertain to the preparation and appreciation of
election returns and the proceedings of the municipal board

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cbebe3e4e536a6cb0003600fb002c009e/p/AQS370/?username=Guest Page 11 of 14
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 339 23/08/2019, 9*55 PM

of canvassers. But note that such petition was filed after

the proclamation of petitioner as the winning candidate,
thus, the petition was no longer viable, for preproclamation
controversies may no longer be entertained by the
COMELEC after the winning candidates have been
proclaimed. It might even be claimed with some reason
that private respondent, by resorting to the wrong 17
remedy,
abandoned his pre-proclamation case earlier filed.
Nonetheless, private respondentÊs belief that he no
longer had a pending case before the COMELEC because
he deemed it abandoned upon filing of his protest is not a
valid reason for nondisclosure of the pendency of said pre-
proclamation case. Note that the COMELEC dismissed
private respondentÊs pre-proclamation case only on July 3,
1998. Before the dismissal, said case was legally still
pending resolution. Similarly, the fact that private
respondentÊs protest was not based on the same cause of
action as his pre-proclamation case is not a valid excuse for
not complying with the required disclosure in the
certification against forum shopping. The requirement to
file a certificate of non-forum shopping is mandatory.
Failure to comply with this requirement cannot be excused
by the fact that a party is not guilty of forum shopping. The
rule applies to any complaint, petition, application or other
initiatory pleading, regardless of whether the party filing it
has actually committed forum shopping. Every party filing
any initiatory pleading is required to swear under oath
that he has not and will not commit forum shopping.
Otherwise we would have an absurd situation, as in this
case, where the parties themselves would be the judge of
whether their actions constitute a violation of the rule, and
compliance therewith would depend on their belief that
they might or might not have violated the requirement.
Such interpre-

_______________

17 Laodenio vs. COMELEC, 276 SCRA 705, 713-714 (1997).

695

VOL. 339, SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 695

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cbebe3e4e536a6cb0003600fb002c009e/p/AQS370/?username=Guest Page 12 of 14
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 339 23/08/2019, 9*55 PM

Soller vs. Commission on Elections

tation of18the requirement would defeat the very purpose of

the rule.
Taking into account all the foregoing circumstances in
this case, we are persuaded that respondent Regional Trial
Court erred and committed grave abuse of discretion in
failing to dismiss private respondentÊs election protest
against petitioner. And to reiterate, respondent COMELEC
en banc had no jurisdiction to affirm the refusal of
respondent trial court to dismiss private respondentÊs
election protest.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The
assailed RESOLUTION of public respondent COMELEC is
hereby ANNULLED AND SET ASIDE. The temporary
restraining order issued by this Court on September 21,
1999, is made permanent. The Regional Trial Court of
Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro, Branch 42, is hereby
ordered to DISMISS election protest EC No. 31-98. Costs
against private respondent.
SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr. (C.J.), Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug,

Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Purisima, Buena,
Gonzaga-Reyes, YnaresSantiago and De Leon, Jr., JJ.,
concur.
Pardo, J., No part.

Petition granted, resolution annulled and set aside.

Election protest EC No. 31-98 ordered dismissed.

Notes.·While the requirement as to certificate of non-

forum shopping is mandatory, nonetheless the requirement
must not be interpreted too literally and thus defeat the
objective of preventing the undesirable practice of forum-
shopping. (Bernardo vs. National Labor Relations
Commission, 255 SCRA 108 [1996])
Compliance with the certification against forum
shopping is separate from, and independent of, the
avoidance of forum shopping itself. (Melo vs. Court of
Appeals, 318 SCRA 94 [1999])

··o0o··

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cbebe3e4e536a6cb0003600fb002c009e/p/AQS370/?username=Guest Page 13 of 14
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 339 23/08/2019, 9*55 PM

_______________

18 Melo vs. Court of Appeals, GR-123686, November 16, 1999, p. 7, 318

SCRA 94.

696

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cbebe3e4e536a6cb0003600fb002c009e/p/AQS370/?username=Guest Page 14 of 14