Verification; Certification of Non-Forum Shopping; Under
justifiable circumstances, Courts have already allowed the relaxation
of the requirements of verification and certification so that the ends
of justice may be better served.
On the requirement of a certification of non-forum shopping, the
well-settled rule is that all the petitioners must sign the certification
of non-forum shopping; The rule, however, admits of an exception
and that is when the petitioners show reasonable cause for failure to
personally sign the certification.
ALTRES VS. EMPLEO
NORBERTO ALTRES, ET AL., petitioners,
vs.
CAMILO G. EMPLEO, ET AL., respondents.
G.R. No. 180986
December 10, 2008
Ponente: CARPIO MORALES, J.:
NATURE OF CASE
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and order of the
Regional Trial Court of Iligan City, Br. 3.
FACTS
Iligan Mayor Quijano advised CSC of its variou career positions in
the city government, of which the latter proceeded its publication.
Petitioners and other applicants submitted their applications for the
different positions where they felt qualified.
Toward the end of his term, Mayor Quijano issued appointments to
petitioners.
In the meantime, the Sangguniang Panglungsod issued requesting a
suspension of action on the processing of appointments to all vacant
positions until the enactment of a new budget and another resolution
holding transmission of all appointments.
Respondent city accountant Empleo did not issue a certification as
to availability of funds for the payment of salaries and wages of
petitioners, as required in the LGU appointment.
The CSC Field Office for Lanao del Norte and Iligan City
disapproved the appointments issued to petitioners invariably due to
lack of certification of availability of funds.
Mayor Quijano appealed to CSC but later dismissed due to lacks a
requirement prescribed by the civil service law, rules and
regulations, it would disapprove it without delving into the reasons
why the requirement was not complied with.
RTC:
RTC denied petitioners petition for mandamus.
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration and is
subsequently denied as well.
SC:
The Court, without giving due course to the petition,
required respondents to comment thereon within ten (10)
days from notice, and at the same time required petitioners to
comply, within the same period, with the relevant provisions
of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
Petitioners filed a Compliance Report as required.
Respondents duly filed their Comment, alleging technical
flaws in petitioners petition, to which Comment petitioners
filed their Reply in compliance with the Courts Resolution
 Respondents assail as defective the verification and
certification against forum shopping attached to the petition
as it bears the signature of only 11 out of the 59 petitioners,
and no competent evidence of identity was presented by the
signing petitioners. They thus move for the dismissal of the
petition
Petitioners, on the other hand, argue that they have a
justifiable cause for their inability to obtain the signatures of
the other petitioners as they could no longer be contacted or
are no longer interested in pursuing the case.
ISSUE/s of the CASE
Whether or not there is a defect in the verifcation and certification
against forum shopping.
ACTION OF THE COURT
SC: GRANTED
COURT RATIONALE ON THE ABOVE CASE
No. Court held that 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;A 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.
Under justifiable circumstances, we have already allowed the
relaxation of the requirements of verification and certification so
that the ends of justice may be better served. Verification is simply
intended to secure an assurance that the allegations in the pleading
are true and correct and not the product of the imagination or a
matter of speculation, and that the pleading is filed in good faith;
while the purpose of the aforesaid certification is to prohibit and
penalize the evils of forum shopping.
On the requirement of a certification of non-forum shopping, the
well-settled rule is that all the petitioners must sign the certification
of non-forum shopping. The reason for this is that the persons who
have signed the certification cannot be presumed to have the
personal knowledge of the other non-signing petitioners with respect
to the filing or non-filing of any action or claim the same as or
similar to the current petition. The rule, however, admits of an
exception and that is when the petitioners show reasonable cause for
failure to personally sign the certification. The petitioners must be
able to convince the court that the outright dismissal of the petition
would defeat the administration of justice.
Distinction between non-com-pliance with the requirement on or
submission of defective verification, and non-compliance with the
requirement on or submission of defective 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.
WHEREFORE, the Court declares that it is Section 474(b)(4), not
Section 344, of the Local Government Code of 1991, which applies
to the requirement of certification of availability of funds under
Section 1(e)(ii), Rule V of Civil Service Commission Memorandum
Circular Number 40, Series of 1998.

4) As to certification against forum shopping, non-compliance SO ORDERED.

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.

SUPREME COURT RULING