Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Rule 7
Civil Procedure
Rule 7
Page 2 of 13
Civil Procedure
Rule 7
had the better right. In the Municipal court, the issue was, in effect,
whether an owner can take the law in his own hands. That he can not do
so seems incontestable: it is not so much a question of possession as it
is one of law and order. To require appellees de la Victoria to acquiesce
to the high-handed conduct of appellant Quimpo, and to submit to his
tour de force, until the superiority of their Torrens Title is finally
adjudged, after God knows how many years, is undoubtedly against all
justice and equity.
WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the orders appealed from,
the same are hereby affirmed, with costs against defendant-petitioner.
Civil Procedure
In its December 10, 2001 Decision, the Court of Appeals ruled in
favor of ASBT.
In ruling against Sameer, the Court of Appeals considered the following
factual circumstances: (1) Sameer admitted that it hired and deployed
Santos, et al. for and in behalf of Ensure for work in Taiwan; (2)
Sameer received the placement fees for the processing of the
documents of Santos, et al., without any showing that said fees inured
to the benefit of ASBT in any way; (3) Santos, et al. were repatriated in
1996, prior to the supposed transfer of Sameers accreditation to ASBT
on June 9, 1997; (4) the August 1, 1997 letter from the Philippine
Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) presented by Sameer
pronouncing the transfer of accreditation of Yuan Fu Co. Ltd. to ASBT,
upon Sameers representation that Yuan Fu Co. Ltd. and Ensure were
one and the same entity, indicated that such accreditation of ASBT had
been cancelled; and (5) Sameer failed to present substantial proof that
Ensure changed its business name to Yuan Fu.
Sameer, thus, moved to reconsider the December 10, 2001 Decision;
but the Court of Appeals denied the same in its March 12, 2002
Resolution. Hence, this petition.
The petition should be denied for utter want of merit.
Issue:
Whether or not Motion for Reconsideration filed by ASBT before the
Court of Appeals were signed by Mildred Santos hence, should be
considered unsigned pleadings which produce no legal effect,
Held:
No. SEC. 3. Signature and address. Every pleading must be signed by
the party or counsel representing him, stating in either case his
address which should not be a post office box.
Rule 7
Civil Procedure
Rule 7
Docena vs Lapesura
Civil Procedure Substantial Compliance on the Rule of Non-Forum
Shopping
FACTS: Spouses Antonio and Alfreda Docena were allegedly lessees
of Casiano Hombria of a parcel of land located in Eastern Samar.
Hombria filed a complaint for the recovery of the said land by reason of
the spouses failure to pay rent. The spouses however argue that they
own the land since time immemorial.
In November 1989, Judge Ricardo Lapesura issued an order in favor of
the spouses Docena. The decision was later reversed by the Court of
Appeals and the latter court ordered the spouses to vacate the premises.
When the order of the Court of Appeals became final and executory,
Hombria filed a Motion for Execution which Judge Lapesura granted
and a Writ of Execution was issued. The court sheriff, Rufino Garado,
after some other clarification by the trial court, issued a Writ of
Demolition against the spouses. The spouses then filed a Motion to Set
Aside the Writ of Demolition which was denied by Lapesura. The
spouses filed a Motion for Reconsideration but the same was denied
too.
Undeterred, the spouses filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
before the Court of Appeals imputing grave abuse of discretion against
Lapesura in issuing his orders denying the spouses motions.
Civil Procedure
Rule 7
The Court of Appeals however denied the Petition for Certiorari and
Prohibition as it turned out that only the husband (Antonio Docena)
signed the attached Certification of Non-Forum Shopping.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Petition filed by the spouses should
prosper.
HELD: Yes. There is substantial compliance in the case at bar which
warrant the allowance of the Petition. The signing of the husband alone
is sufficient compliance with the requirements of Sections 1 and 2 of
Rule 65 (Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition) in relation to Section 3
of Rule 46 (Original Cases Filed in the Court of Appeals). Since the
spouses are with joint or indivisible interest over the alleged conjugal
property subject of the original action which gave rise to the petition for
certiorari and prohibition, the signing of the certificate of non-forum
shopping by only one of them would suffice, especially considering the
long distance they had to travel just to sign the said certificate.
Moreover, it should be noted that husband is the statutory administrator
of the conjugal property. (But of course, the determination of whether
or not the property is really conjugal is not upon the Supreme Court in
the case at bar).
Note also that suits to defend an interest in the conjugal properties may
be filed by the husband alone, with more reason, he may sign the
certificate of non-forum shopping to be attached to the petition.
SANTO TOMAS UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, petitioner vs. CESAR
ANTONIO Y. SURLA and EVANGELINE SURLA, respondents.
DOCTRINE: A certificate of non-forum shopping is required in
permissive counterclaims.
Page 6 of 13
Civil Procedure
Rule 7
trial court erred in its decision as the subject SC circular does not apply
to compulsory counterclaims. CA affirmed the trial court's ruling.
ISSUE: Whether or not a compulsory counterclaim pleaded in an
Answer be dismissed on the ground of a failure to accompany it with a
certificate of non-forum shopping.
HELD: The pertinent provisions of Administrative Circular No. 04-94
provide:
1 The plaintiff, petitioner, applicant or principal party seeking relief in
the complaint, petition, application or other initiatory pleading shall
certify under oath in such original pleading, or in a sworn certification
annexed thereto and simultaneously filed therewith, to the truth of the
following facts and undertakings:
(a) he has not theretofore commenced any other action or proceeding
involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals,
or any other tribunal or agency;
(b) to the best of his knowledge, no such action or proceeding is
pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other
tribunal or agency;
(c) if there is any such action or proceeding which is either pending or
may have been terminated, he must state the status thereof; and
(d) 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 any other tribunal or agency, he undertakes to report that
fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court or agency wherein the
original pleading and sworn certification contemplated here have been
filed.
The complaint and other initiatory pleadings referred to and subject of
this Circular are the original civil complaint, counterclaim, cross-claim
third (fourth, etc.) complaint or complaint-in-intervention, petition, or
application wherein a party asserts his claim for relief.
Page 7 of 13
Civil Procedure
Petitioner alleged that in 1995, it granted 20% sales discounts to
qualified senior citizens on purchases of medicine pursuant to
Republic Act No. (RA) 7432[3] and its implementing rules and
regulations.
In compliance with Revenue Regulation No. (RR) 2-94,
petitioner treated the 20% sales discounts granted to qualified
senior citizens in 1995 as deductions from the gross sales in
order to arrive at the net sales, instead of treating them as tax
credit as provided by Section 4 of RA 7432.
On December 27, 1996, however, petitioner filed with the
Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) a claim for tax refund/tax
credit of the full amount of the 20% sales discount it granted to
senior citizens for the year 1995, allegedly totaling to PhP
123,083 in accordance with Sec. 4 of RA 7432.
The BIRs inaction on petitioners claim for refund/tax credit
compelled petitioner to file on March 18, 1998 a petition for
review before the CTA docketed as C.T.A. Case No. 5581 in
order to forestall the two-year prescriptive period provided
under Sec. 230[4] of the 1977 Tax Code, as amended. Thereafter,
on March 31, 2000, petitioner amended its petition for review.
Court of tax Appeals dismissed petition for review for lack of
merit.
Rule 7
vs.
The Case
- petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
- seeks the recall of the August 31, 2000 Resolution [1] of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 59778, which
dismissed petitioner Cagayan Valley Drug Corporations petition
for review of the April 26, 2000 Decision [2] of the Court of Tax
Appeals (CTA) in C.T.A. Case No. 5581 on the ground of
defective verification and certification against forum shopping.
Facts:
Petitioner, a corporation duly organized and existing under
Philippine laws, is a duly licensed retailer of medicine and other
pharmaceutical products. It operates two drugstores, one in
Tuguegarao, Cagayan, and the other in Roxas, Isabela, under the
name and style of Mercury Drug.
Page 8 of 13
Civil Procedure
submitted unaccompanied by proof of the signatorys authority.
[14]
We believe that appending the board resolution to the
complaint or petition is the better procedure to obviate any
question on the authority of the signatory to the verification and
certification. The required submission of the board resolution is
grounded on the basic precept that corporate powers are
exercised by the board of directors,[15] and not solely by an
officer of the corporation. Hence, the power to sue and be sued
in any court or quasi-judicial tribunal is necessarily lodged with
the said board.
In the case at bar, we so hold that petitioner substantially
complied with Secs. 4 and 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Revised Rules
on Civil Procedure. First, the requisite board resolution has
been submitted albeit belatedly by petitioner. Second, we apply
our ruling in Lepanto with the rationale that the President of
petitioner is in a position to verify the truthfulness and
correctness of the allegations in the petition. Third, the President
of petitioner has signed the complaint before the CTA at the
inception of this judicial claim for refund or tax credit.
FIDEL O. CHUA and FILIDEN REALTY AND
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, v. METROPOLITAN
BANK & TRUST COMPANY, ATTY. ROMUALDO
CELESTRA, ATTY. ANTONIO V. VIRAY, ATTY. RAMON
MIRANDA and ATTY. POMPEYO MAYNIGO
Facts:
Rule 7
CA: held that the person who signed the verification and
certification of absence of forum shopping, a certain Jacinto J.
Concepcion, President of petitioner, failed to adduce proof that
he was duly authorized by the board of directors to do so.
As far as the CA was concerned, the main issue was
whether or not the verification and certification of non-forum
shopping signed by the President of petitioner is sufficient
compliance with Secs. 4 and 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure.
The Issues
Whether petitioners president can sign the subject
verification and certification sans the approval of its Board
of Directors.
Held: Yes.
With respect to a juridical person, Sec. 4, Rule 7 on verification
and Sec. 5, Rule 7 on certification against forum shopping are
silent as to who the authorized signatory should be. Said rules
do not indicate if the submission of a board resolution
authorizing the officer or representative is necessary.
In Philippine Airlines v. Flight Attendants and Stewards
Association of the Philippines, we ruled that only individuals
vested with authority by a valid board resolution may sign the
certificate of non-forum shopping on behalf of a
corporation. The action can be dismissed if the certification was
Page 9 of 13
Civil Procedure
properties. Upon a verified Petition for Foreclosure filed
by respondent Metrobank on 25 April 2001, respondent
Atty. Romualdo Celestra (Atty. Celestra) issued a Notice
of Sale dated 26 April 2001, wherein the mortgage debt
was set at P88,101,093.98, excluding unpaid interest and
penalties (to be computed from 14 September 1999),
attorneys fees, legal fees, and other expenses for the
foreclosure and sale. The auction sale was scheduled
on 31 May 2001.[10] On 4 May 2001, petitioners received
a copy of the Notice of Sale.[11]
On 28 May 2001, petitioner Chua, in his personal
capacity and acting on behalf of petitioner Filiden, filed before
Branch 257 of the Regional Trial Court of Paraaque (RTCBranch 257), a Complaint for Injunction with Prayer for
Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), Preliminary
Injunction and Damages,[12] against respondents Atty. Celestra,
docketed as Civil Case No. CV-01-0207. Upon the motion of
petitioners, RTC-Branch 257 issued a TRO enjoining
respondents Metrobank and Atty. Celestra from conducting the
auction sale of the mortgaged properties on 31 May 2001.[13]
After the expiration of the TRO on 18 June 2001, and no
injunction having been issued by RTC-Branch 257, respondent
Atty. Celestra reset the auction sale on 8 November 2001.On 8
November 2001, the rescheduled date of the auction sale, RTCBranch 257 issued an Order directing that the said sale be reset
anew after 8 November 2001.
Rule 7
Civil Procedure
initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in
a sworn certification annexed thereto and
simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he has not
theretofore commenced any action or filed any
claim involving the same issues in any court,
tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of
his knowledge, no such other action or claim is
pending therein; (b) if there is such other pending
action or claim, a complete statement of the
present status thereof; and (c) 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 (5) days therefrom to the court
wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory
pleading has been filed.
Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements
shall not be curable by mere amendment of the complaint
or other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the
dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless otherwise
provided, upon motion and after hearing. The submission
of a false certification or non-compliance with any of the
undertakings therein shall constitute indirect contempt of
court, without prejudice to the corresponding
administrative and criminal actions. If the acts of the party
or his counsel clearly constitutes willful and deliberate
forum shopping, the same shall be ground for summary
dismissal with prejudice and shall constitute direct
contempt, as well as a cause for administrative sanctions.
Rule 7
Civil Procedure
In the present case, there is no dispute that petitioners
failed to state in the Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping,
attached to their Verified Complaint in Civil Case No. CV-050402 before RTC-Branch 195, the existence of Civil Case No.
CV-01-0207 pending before RTC-Branch 258. Nevertheless,
petitioners insist that they are not guilty of forum shopping,
since (1) the two cases do not have the same ultimate
objective Civil Case No. CV-01-0207 seeks the annulment of
the 8 November 2001 public auction and certificate of sale
issued therein, while Civil Case No. CV-05-0402 prays for the
award of actual and compensatory damages for respondents
tortuous act of making it appear that an auction sale actually
took place on 8 November 2001; and (2) the judgment in Civil
Case No. CV-01-0207, on the annulment of the foreclosure sale,
would not affect the outcome of Civil Case No. CV-05-0402, on
the entitlement of petitioners to damages. The Court, however,
finds these arguments refuted by the allegations made by
petitioners themselves in their Complaints in both cases.
Petitioners committed forum shopping by filing multiple
cases based on the same cause of action, although with different
prayers.
Rule 7
Page 12 of 13
Civil Procedure
Rule 7
Page 13 of 13