Rule 7

PARTS OF A PLEADING

Sec. 1 Caption. The caption sets forth the name

of the court. The title of the action, and docket
number if assigned.
The title of the action indicates the names of
the parties. They shall all be named in the
original complaint or petition; but in subsequent
pleadings it shall be sufficient if the name of the
first party on each side be started with an
appropriate indication when there are other
parties.
Their respective participation in the case shall
be indicated.

ILLUSTRATION:
Republic of the Philippines
11th Judicial Region
CAPTION Regional Trial
contains theCourt of Davao
following:
Branch 12
1. the name of the court;
2. the title of the action and
3. the docket number if assigned.

Juan dela Cruz,

Plaintiff Civil Case #12345
For: Annulment of Contract
-versus-
TITLE
Osama bin Laden
Defendant

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, through counsel respectfully alleges that:

BODY sets forth: 1. x x x x x x;
1. its designation; 2. x x x x x x;
2. the allegation of the3.party's
x x x x xclaims
x and defenses;
3. the relief prayed for; and
4. the date of the pleading

JBD 128
The rule is, it is only in the complaint where the name of all the parties are
required to be stated, but in subsequent pleadings, no need. But there is an
EXCEPTION to this rule. There are instances where the law does not require the
name of the parties to be stated even in the complaint.

Q: What are the instances where the law does not require the name of the
parties to be stated even in the complaint or pleading?
A: These are the following:
1.) Subsequent Pleading (e.g. answer, reply, etc.) (Section 1);
2.) Class suit (Rule 3, Section 12);
3.) When the identity or name of the defendant is unknown (Rule 3, Section
14);
4.) When you sue an entity without judicial personality (Rule 3, Section
15);
5.) If a party is sued in his official capacity. Official designation is sufficient.
[e.g. Mr. Acelar vs. City Mayor of Davao.] (Unabia vs. City Mayor, 99
Phil. 253)

Variance between caption and allegations in the pleading

It is not the caption of the pleading but the allegations therein which
determine the nature of the action and the court shall grant relief warranted by
the allegations and proof even if no such relief is prayed for (Solid Homes Inc. vs.
CA, 271 SCRA 157; Banco Filipino vs. CA, 332 SCRA 241; Lorbes vs. CA 351
SCRA 716). Thus, a complaint captioned as unlawful detainer is actually an
action for forcible entry where the allegations show that the possessor of the land
was deprived of the same by force, intimidation, strategy, threat or stealth.
Likewise, a complaint for unlawful detainer is actually an action for collection of
a sum of money where the allegations of the complaint do not disclose that the
plaintiff demanded upon the defendant to vacate the property but merely
demanded to pay the rentals in arrears.

In one case, while the complaint was denominated as one for specific
performance, the allegations of the complaint and the relief prayed for actually
and ultimately sought for the execution of a deed of conveyance to effect a
transfer of ownership of the property in question. The action therefore, is a real
action (Gochan vs. Gochan, 372 SCRA 256). Also although the complaint was
denominated as one for reformation of the instrument, the allegations of the
complaint did not preclude the court from passing upon the real issue of whether
or not the transfer between the parties was a sale or an equitable mortgage as the
said issue has been squarely raised in the complaint and had been the subject of
arguments and evidence of the parties. (Lorbes vs. CA 351 SCRA 716).

If the petitioner filed before the SC a petition captioned Petition for

Certiorari based on Rule 65 but the allegations show that the issues raised are
pure questions of law, the cause of action is not one based on Rule 65 which

JBD 129
raises issues of jurisdiction, but on Rule 45 which raises pure questions of law.
The allegations of the pleading determine the cause of action and not the title of
the pleading (De Castro vs. Fernandez, Jr. GR No. 155041, Feb. 14, 2007)

Sec. 2. The body. - The body of the pleading sets

forth its designation, the allegations of the
party's claims or defenses, the relief prayed for,
and the date of the pleading. (n)
a)Paragraphs - the allegations in the body of a
pleading shall be divided into paragraphs so
numbered as to be readily identified, each of which
shall contain a statement of a single set of
circumstances so far as that can be done with
convenience. A paragraph may be referred to by its
number in all succeeding pleadings. (3a)
(b) Headings - When two or more causes of
action are joined, the statement of the first shall
be prefaced by the words "First cause of action",
of the second by "second cause of action," and so
on for the others.
(c) Relief - The pleading shall specify the
relief sought, but it may add a general prayer for
such further or other relief as may be deemed just
or equitable. (3a, R6)
(d) Date - Every pleading shall be dated. (n)

The body-
A pleading is divided into paragraphs so numbered as to be readily identified.
Normally, a complaint starts: Plaintiff, thru counsel, respectfully alleges that x x x.
Then first paragraph, second paragraph and so on. The first paragraph is
normally the statement of the parties and their addresses which is required
under Rule 6 where a complaint must state the names:

1. Plaintiff Juan dela Cruz is of legal age, a resident of Davao City whereas
defendant Pedro Bautista, is also of legal age and a resident of Davao City.
2. On such and such a date, defendant secured a loan from plaintiff in the
amount of so much payable on this date.
3. The loan is now overdue but defendant still refused to pay.

So every paragraph is numbered so that it can easily be identified in the

subsequent pleadings. So in his Answer, the defendant will just refer to the #, I
admit the allegations in paragraph #5)

Paragraph [b] is related to Rule 2 on joinder of causes of action. Can you file
one complaint embodying two or more causes of action? YES.

EXAMPLE: Angelo wants to file a case against Ina to collect three unpaid
promissory notes. So, there are three causes of action. The lawyer of Angelo
JBD 130
decided to file only one complaint collecting the three promissory notes. Now,
how should he prepare the complaint containing the three promissory notes?

Plaintiff respectfully alleges: 1. that he is of legal age x x x.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: In 1995, there was a loan secured

amounting to so much and it is not paid until now;
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: In 1995, there was a second loan
became payable and is not paid.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: x x x x.

So, you indicate your different causes of action. That is how you prepare your
complaint. On the other hand, the defendant will answer:

ANSWER:
ANSWER TO THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION x x x,
ANSWER TO THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION x x x,
ANSWER TO THE THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION x x x.

Do not combine them together in one paragraph. Even in trial when you
present your exhibits, you might get confused because you combined all the
three causes of action in one paragraph. But with this one, the presentation is
clearer, the outline is clearer and it is more scientifically arranged than joining
them in one story.

Relief-

In the body, you state your allegations or defenses. Then at the end, you state the
relief which we call PRAYER what you are asking the court: Wherefore, it is
respectfully prayed that judgment be rendered ordering defendant to pay plaintiff his
loan of P1 million with interest of 10% p.a. from this date until fully paid. Then, you
end up with the date of the pleading: Davao City, Philippines, December 10, 1997.

Under paragraph [c], the pleading must state the relief sought. But it may add a
general prayer for such further other relief as may be just and equitable like,
Plaintiff prays for such further or other relief which the court may deem just or
equitable.

The relief or prayer, although part of the complaint, does not constitute a part
of the statement of the cause of action. It does not also serve to limit or narrow
the issues presented (UBS vs. CA 332 SCRA 534)

It is the material allegations of the complaint, not the legal consequences made
therein or the prayer that determines the relief to which the plaintiff is entitled.
(Banco Filipino vs. CA 332 SCRA 241).

JBD 131
 It is important to remember that the court may grant a relief not prayed for as
long as the relief is warranted by the allegations of the complaint and the
proof. (Lorbes vs. CA).

Q: Is the prayer or relief part of the main action?

A: NO, it is part of the complaint or answer but it may indicate what is the
nature of the cause of action. Causes of action are mere allegations. Prayer is not
part of the cause action but it is important because it might enlighten us on the
nature of the cause of action. That is the purpose of relief or prayer.

EXAMPLE : Angelo filed a case against Ina for annulment of a contract of sale.
If you look at the caption, it is a personal action which should be instituted in the
place where the parties reside. But if you look at the prayer: Wherefore, it is
respectfully prayed that after trial, the deed of sale shall be annulled on the ground of
intimidation, and the ownership of the land sold to the defendant in Digos be ordered
returned. Actually, you are trying to recover the ownership of the land. So in
other words, it is not a personal action but a real action.

Relief/s that a court can grant-

Leticia Diona, represented by her Attorney-in-fact, Marcelina Diona v.

Romeo Balangue, Sonny Balangue, Reynaldo Balangue, and Esteban
Balangue, Jr.; G.R. No. 173559. January 7, 2013

Pleadings; relief. It is settled that courts cannot grant a relief not prayed for
in the pleadings or in excess of what is being sought by the party. They
cannot also grant a relief without first ascertaining the evidence presented
in court. In Development Bank of the Philippines v. Tecson, this Court
expounded that:
Due process considerations justify this requirement, it is improper to enter an
order which exceeds the scope of relief sought by the pleadings, absent notice,
which affords the opposing party an opportunity to be heard with respect to the
proposed relief. The fundamental purpose of the requirement that allegations of
the complaint must provide the measure of recovery is to prevent surprise to the
defendant.

Notably, the Rules is even more strict in safeguarding the right to due process
of a defendant who was declared in default than of a defendant who participated
in trial. For instance, amendment to conform to the evidence presented during
trial is allowed the parties under the Rules. But the same is not feasible when the
defendant is declared in default because Section 3(d), Rule 9 of the Rules of
Court comes into play and limits the relief that may be granted by the courts to
what has been prayed for in the complaint. xxx The raison detre in limiting the
extent of relief that may be granted is that it cannot be presumed that the
defendant would not file an Answer and allow himself to be declared in default
had he know that the plaintiff will be accorded a relief greater than or different in
kind from that sought in the Complaint. No doubt, the reason behind Section 3(d),
Rule 9 of the Rules of Court is to safeguard defendants right to due process
JBD 132
against unforeseen and arbitrarily issued judgment. This, to the mind of the
Court, is akin to the very essence of due process. It embodies the sporting idea
of fair play and forbids the grant of relief on matters where the defendant was
not given the opportunity to be heard thereon.

In Prince Transport, Inc. v. Garcia, 639 SCRA 312, 330, the Court ruled that a
court can grant the relief warranted by the allegations and the proof even if it is
not specifically sought by the injured party; the inclusion of a general prayer may
justify the grant of a remedy different from or together with the specific remedy
sought, if the facts alleged in the complaint and the evidence introduced so
warrant.

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.
x x x x x

Signature and address every pleading must be signed by the party or the
counsel representing him.

A signed pleading is one that is signed either by the party himself or his
counsel. Section 3, Rule 7 is clear on this matter. It requires that a pleading must
be signed by the party or counsel representing him. Therefore, only the signature
of either the party himself or his counsel operates to validly convert a pleading
from one that is unsigned to one that is signed. (Republic vs. Kenrick
Development Corp. 351 SCRA 716)

Counsels authority to sign personal to him/her-

It has been held that counsels authority and duty to sign a pleading are
personal to him. He may not delegate it to just any person because the signature
of counsel constitutes an assurance by him that:
1. he has read the pleading;
2. that to the best of his knowledge, information and belief, there is a good
ground to support it; and
3. that it is not interposed for delay.

Under the Rules of Court, it is counsel alone, by affixing his signature, who
can certify to these matters.

The preparation and signing of a pleading constitute legal work involving

practice of law which is reserved exclusively for the members of the legal
profession. Accordingly however, counsel may delegate the signing of a pleading
to another lawyer but cannot do so in favor of one who is not. In so ruling the

JBD 133
Court cites The Code of Professional Responsibility, the pertinent provision on
which provides:

Rule 9.01 A lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person the
performance of any task which by law may only be performed by a member of
the Bar in good standing.

A signature by agents of a lawyer amounts to signing by unqualified

persons, something the law strongly proscribes. Therefore, the blanket authority
entrusted to just anyone is void. Any act taken pursuant to that authority is
likewise void. Hence, there is no way it could be cured or ratified by counsel.
(Republic vs. Kenrick Development Corp.)

Not Post Office Address, why?

Take note of the prohibition now: You must state your address which should
not be a post office box because one difficulty is that the exact date when you
claim your mail cannot be determined if it is a P.O. box. But if it is served to his
office, the exact date of receipt can easily be determined.

IMPLIED CERTIFICATION IN A PLEADING

Section 3, second paragraph:

The signature of counsel constitutes a

certification by him that he has read the pleading;
that to the best to his knowledge, information, and
belief there is good ground to support it; and that
it is not interposed for delay.

BAR QUESTION: What is the meaning of the phrase Implied Certification in

a Pleading?
A: Implied Certification in a Pleading means that when a lawyer signs a
pleading he is certifying that he has read it, to the best of his knowledge,
information and belief there is a good ground to support it, and it is not
interposed for delay.

Effect of an unsigned pleading-

Section 3, last paragraph:

An unsigned pleading produces no legal effect.

However, the court may, in its discretion, allow
such deficiency to be remedied if it shall appear
that the same was due to mere inadvertence and not
intended for delay. Counsel who deliberately files
JBD 134
 an unsigned pleading, or signs a pleading in
violation of this Rule, or alleges scandalous or
indecent matter therein, or fails to promptly
report to the court a change of his address, shall
be subject to appropriate disciplinary action. (5a)

So, when a pleading is not signed it produces no legal effect. It is as if no

pleading has been filed.

Q: Now, suppose it was just an inadvertent omission, it was not intentional

maybe because he was hurrying to file the pleading, the lawyer had it filed when
actually he has not signed it yet.
A: Well, actually if that is in good faith, the court may forgive the counsel
because the law says, however, the court, may in its discretion, allow such
deficiency to be remedied if it shall appear that the same was due to mere
inadvertence and not intended for delay.

However, if the lawyer files a pleading, which is UNSIGNED

DELIBERATELY, then, according to the rules, he shall be subject to appropriate
disciplinary action. That is practically unethical no? Not only that, he is also
subject to disciplinary action if he signs a pleading in violation of this Rule or
alleges scandalous or indecent matter therein, or fails to promptly report to the
court a change of his address..

Now, this ground fails to promptly report to the court a change of his
address has been inserted in 1997 Rules, this was not found in the prior Rules
perhaps to prevent delays.

Q: What do you mean by this?

A: A lawyer will file a pleading in court, he will say this is his address, and
then he moves his office without telling the court or the opposing counsel of his
new address. So, the court will be sending notices and orders to his old address
and it is returned to sender because the lawyer already moved to another place.
So, it causes delay.

So, in order to penalize the lawyer, subject to disciplinary action, it is his

obligation to inform the court and even the opposing counsel about his new
address so that all court orders, decisions and all pleadings will be served on his
address. I think what prompted the SC to insert this is the fact that it has been the
cause of delays in many cases.

Disciplinary action on counsel in the following cases:

1. deliberately filing an unsigned pleading;
2. deliberately signing a pleading in violation of the Rules;
3. alleging scandalous or indecent matter in the pleading; or
4. failing to promptly report a change of his/her address.

JBD 135
Signature of a misjoined party-
The Court rules that the absence of the signature of the person misjoined as a
party-plaintiff in either the verification page or certification against forum
shopping is not a ground for the dismissal of the action. There is no judicial
precedent affirming or rejecting such a view, but we are comfortable with
making such a pronouncement. A misjoined party plaintiff has no business
participating in the case as a plaintiff in the first place, and it would make little
sense to require the misjoined party in complying with all the requirements
expected of plaintiffs (Chua v. Torres GR No. 151900, Aug 30, 2005).

VERIFICATION

Sec. 4. Verification.- Except when otherwise

specifically required by law or rule, pleadings
need not be under oath, verified or accompanied by
affidavit. (5)
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
knowledge and belief.
A pleading required to be verified which contains
a verification based on "information and belief,"
or upon "knowledge, information and belief," or
lacks a proper verification, shall be treated as an
unsigned pleading. (6a)

How a Pleading is Verified-

A pleading is verified by an affidavit, which declares that:

(a) the affiant has read the pleading, and
(b) that the allegations therein are true and correct of his personal knowledge
or based on authentic records (Sec. 4 as amended by A.M. No. 00-2-10, May 1,
2000)

Example:

I, Juan de la Cruz of legal age, after being

sworn in accordance with law, hereby say that:

I am the plaintiff in the above entitled case.

I caused the preparation of this complaint;
I read the allegations therein;
And they are true and correct of my own
knowledge.

Signed
Affiant
JBD 136
 Subscribed and sworn to before me on this 2nd
day of October 2001, in the City of Cebu,
Philippines.

Panfilo Corpuz
Notary Public

Significance of a Verification-

The purpose of verification is to insure good faith in the averments of a

pleading or that they are true and correct, not merely speculative. (Sarmiento vs.
Zaratan GR No. 167471, February 5, 2007).

Effect if verification is false-

Q: What do you think will happen if a pleading is verified by a party and it turns
out that the allegations are false? And that he deliberately made those allegations
false and under oath.
A: Well, you know your Criminal Law. That will be a ground for the prosecution
for the crime of perjury, because that is a false affidavit. But if the pleading is not
verified, even if they are false, there is no perjury, because perjury requires a
sworn statement by the accused.

Effect of lack of a verification-

Lack of verification in a pleading is a formal defect, not jurisdictional defect,
and can be cured by amendment. (Phil. Bank of Commerce vs. Macadaeg, L-
14174, Oct. 31, 1960)

The absence of a verification may be corrected by requiring an oath. The rule is in

keeping with the principle that rules of procedure are established to secure
substantial justice and that technical requirements may be dispensed with in
meritorious cases. (Pampanga Sugar Development Company, Inc. vs. NLRC 272
SCRA 737) The court may order the correction of the pleading or act on an
unverified pleading if the attending circumstances are such that strict compliance
would not fully serve substantial justice, which after all, is the basic aim for the
rules of procedure. (Robert Development Corp. vs. Quitain 315 SCRA 150; Joson
vs. Torres 290 SCRA 279)

What pleading needs to be verified-

Q: Does the law require every pleading to be verified?
A: NO. The GENERAL RULE is, pleadings need not be under oath, EXCEPT
when otherwise specifically required by law or this rule. When the law or rules
require a pleading to be verified, then it must be verified, otherwise it is formally

JBD 137
detective. If the law is silent, verification is not necessary and the pleading is filed
properly.

Litigants not required to read the very same document to be filed in court-

Generally, a pleading is not required to be verified unless required by law or

by the Rules of Court. Verification, when required, is intended to secure an
assurance that the allegations of a pleading are true and correct; are not
speculative or merely imagined; and have been made in good faith. To achieve
this purpose, the verification of a pleading is made through an affidavit or sworn
statement confirming that the affiant has read the pleading whose allegations are
true and correct of the affiant's personal knowledge or based on authentic
records.

However, the Rules do not require the litigants to read the very same
document that is to be filed before the courts; what the Rules require is for a
party to read the contents of a pleading without any specific requirement on
the form or manner in which the reading is to be done. That a client may read
the contents of a pleading without seeing the same pleading to be actually filed
with the court is, in these days of e-mails and other technological advances in
communication not an explanation that is hard to believe. The variance between
the dates of the Petition and the Verification does not necessarily lead to the
conclusion that no verification was made, or that the verification was false.
(Sps. Valmonte v. Alcala, GR No. 168667, July 23, 2008)

BAR QUESTION: Name as many pleadings as you can which must be

verified.
A: The following:
1.) Rule 8 when you deny the due execution of an actionable document;
2.) Summary Rules all pleadings under summary rules should be
verified;
3.) Special Civil Actions petitions for certiorari, prohibition and
mandamus.
4.) Statement of Claim for Small Claims cases as well as the response
thereto (Secs. 5 & 11, Procedure for Small Claims Cases)
5.) Complaint for Injunction (Sec. 4 R 58)
6.) Application for Appointment of Receiver (Sec. 1 R 59)
7.) Application for Support Pendente Lite (Sec. 1 R 69)
8.) Petition for Forcible Entry or Unlawful Detainer, the answers thereto,
and the answers to any compulsory counterclaim and cross-claim
pleaded in the answer (Sec. 4 R 70)
9.) Petition for Indirect Contempt (Sec. 4 R 71)
10.) Petition for Relief from Judgment or Order (Sec. 3 R 38)
11.) Petition for Review from the RTC to the SC (Sec. 2(c) R 41)
12.) Petition for Review from RTC to SC (Sec. 1 R 42)

JBD 138
 13.) Petition for Review from CTA and other quasi-judicial agencies to the
CA (Sec. 5 R 43)
14.) Appeal by Certiorari Under R 45 from CA to SC (Sec. 1 R 45)
15.) Petition for Appointment of a Guardian (Sec. 2 R 93)
16.) Petition for Leave filed by Guardian to Sell or Encumber Property of
an Estate (Sec. 1 R 95)
17.) Petition for Declaration of Competency of a Ward (Sec. 1 R 97)
18.) Petition for Habeas Corpus (Sec. 3 R 102)
19.) Petition for Change of Name (Sec. 2 R 103)
20.) Petition for Voluntary Judicial Dissolution of a Corporation (Sec. 1 R
105)
21.) Petition for Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registru
(Sec. 1 R 108)

Q: Now, on the other hand, suppose a pleading does not require verification
but the lawyer had it verified. What is the effect?
A: There is no effect, just surplusage! A pleading in general is not required to
be verified. But I will verify it. Is there something wrong with it? Technically,
none. But if it is required to be verified and you omit the verification, it is
formally defective.

CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING

Sec. 5. Certification against forum shopping.--

The plaintiff or the principal party shall certify
under oath in the complaint or other 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 status thereof; and
c)if he should thereafter learn that the same or
similar action or claim has been filed or pending,
he shall report that fact within (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
JBD 139
 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
constitute 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. (n)

The certification is mandatory under Sec. 5 of Rule 7 but not jurisdictional.

(Robert Development Corp. vs. Quitain)

This rule applies as well to special civil actions since a special civil action is
governed by the rules for ordinary civil actions, subject to the specific rules
prescribed for a special civil action. Such specific rule appears under Rule 46, Sec.
3, which requires that every petition for certiorari to be accompanied by a sworn
certification of non-forum shopping. (Wacnang vs. Comelec, GR No. 178024 Oct.
17, 2008)

Failure to submit certification against forum shopping and forum shopping

are two separate grounds for dismissal--

The failure to submit a certification against forum shopping is a ground for

dismissal, separate and distinct from forum shopping as a ground for
dismissal. A complaint may be dismissed for forum shopping even if there is a
certification attached and conversely, a complaint may be dismissed for lack
of the required certification even if the party has not committed forum
shopping. Compliance with the certification against forum shopping is
separate from, and independent of, the avoidance of forum shopping itself.
(Juaban vs. Espina 548 SCRA 588, March 14, 2008).

Benedicto v. Lacson, et al., G.R. No. 141508, May 5, 2010

There is no need to state that a case was filed and dismissed in the certificate of
non-forum shopping if dismissal is without prejudice.

Foundation of the rule is res judicata.

Pleadings requiring a certification-

The certification against forum shopping is mandatory in filing a complaint

and other initiatory pleadings asserting a claim (Sec.5) This initiatory
pleadings include not only the 1. original complaint but also 2.permissive

JBD 140
counterclaim, 3. cross-claim, 4. third (fourth)-party complaint, 5. complaint in
intervention, 6. petition or any application in which a party asserts a claim for
relief. The rule does not require a certification against forum shopping for a
compulsory counterclaim because it cannot be the subject of a separate and
independent adjudication. It is therefore, not an initiatory pleading (UST vs.
Surla, 294 SCRA 382)

It bears stressing that the Rule distinctly provides that the required
certification against forum shopping is intended to cover an initiatory pleading,
meaning an incipient application of a party asserting a claim for relief. The
answer with a counterclaim is a responsive pleading, filed merely to counter
petitioners complaint that initiates the civil action and is a claim for relief that is
derived only from, or is necessarily connected with, the main action or
complaint. It is not an initiatory pleading (Sps. Carpio vs. Rural Bank of Sto.
Tomas Batangas, supra)

SANTO TOMAS UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL vs. SURLA

294 SCRA 382 [Aug. 17, 1998]

HELD: The certification of non-forum shopping applies only to

permissive counterclaims because there is no possibility of forum
shopping in compulsory counterclaims.
The proviso in the second paragraph of Section 5, Rule 7, of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure, i.e., that the violation of the anti-forum
shopping rule shall not be curable by mere amendment . . . but shall be
cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice, being predicated
on the applicability of the need for a certification against forum
shopping, obviously does not include a claim which cannot be
independently set up.

Forum Shopping; definition and nature.

1.There is forum shopping when, as a result of an adverse opinion in one

forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion, other than by appeal or certiorari, in
another.

2.There can also be forum shopping when a party institutes two or more suits
in different courts, either simultaneously or successively, in order to ask the
courts to rule on the same or related causes and/or to grant the same or
substantially the same reliefs on the same supposition that one or the other court
would make a favorable disposition or increase a partys chances of obtaining a
favorable decision or action. (Huibonhoa vs. Concepcion GR 153785, August 3,
2006; Heirs of Cesar Marasigan vs. Marasigan, GR 156078 March 14, 2008)

JBD 141
 It is an act of a party against whom an adverse judgment has been rendered in
one forum of seeking and possibly getting a favorable opinion in another forum,
other than by appeal or the special civil action of certiorari, or the institution of
two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause on the
supposition that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition. (Sps.
Carpio vs. Rural Bank of Sto. Tomas Batangas GR 153171 May 4, 2006)

Estrella Aduan Orpiano v. Spouses Antonio C. Tomas and Myrna U.

Tomas; G.R. No. 178611. January 14, 2013

Forum shopping is defined as an act of a party, against whom an adverse

judgment or order has been rendered in one forum, of seeking and possibly
getting a favorable opinion in another forum, other than by appeal or special civil
action for certiorari. It may also be the institution of two or more actions or
proceedings grounded on the same cause on the supposition that one or the
other court would make a favorable decision. x x x It is expressly prohibited xxx
because:
a.) it trifles with and abuses court processes,
b.) degrades the administration of justice, and
c.) congest our court dockets. A willful and deliberate violation of the rule
against forum shopping is a ground for summary dismissal of the case,
and may also constitute indirect contempt.

How to determine existence of forum shopping

To determine whether a party violated the rule against forum shopping, the
most important question to ask is whether the elements of litis pendentia are
present or whether a final judgment in one case will result to res judicata in
another. Otherwise stated, to determine forum shopping, the test is to see
whether in the two or more cases pending, there is (a) identity of parties, (b)
identity of rights or causes of action, and (c) identity of reliefs sought
(Huibonhoa vs. Concepcion)

What is pivotal in determining whether forum shopping exists or not is the

vexation caused the courts and parties-litigants by a party who asks different
courts and/or administrative agencies to rule on the same or related causes
and/or grant the same or substantially the same reliefs, in the process creating
possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by the different courts and/or
administrative agencies upon the same issues (Lim vs. Vianzon GR 137187,
August 3, 2006).

Forum-shopping exists when the elements of litis pendentia concur.

ELSA D. MEDADO vs. HEIRS OF THE LATE ANTONIO CONSING, as

represented by DR.SOLEDAD CONSING,
G.R. No. 186720, February 8, 2012

JBD 142
On the third issue, there is forum shopping when the elements of litis
pendentia are present, i.e., between actions pending before courts, there exist:
(1) identity of parties, or at least such parties as represent the same
interests in both actions,
(2) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being
founded on the same facts, and
(3) the identity of the two preceding particulars is such that any judgment
rendered in the other action will, regardless of which party is
successful, amount to res judicata in the action under consideration;
said requisites are also constitutive of the requisites for auter action
pendant or lis pendens

Applying the foregoing, there was clearly a violation of the rule against
forum shopping when Spouses Medado instituted Civil Case No. 797
C for injunction notwithstanding the pendency of Civil Case No. 00
11320 for rescission of contract and damages.

All elements of litis pendentia are present with the filing of the two
cases. There is no dispute that there is identity of parties representing the same
interests in the two actions, both involving the estate and heirs of the late
Consing on one hand, and Spouses Medado on the other. The rescission case
names Soledad T. Consing, for herself and as administratrix of the estate of
Antonio Consing as plaintiff, with Spouses Meritus Rey and Elsa Medado,
[PNB] and the Register of Deeds of Cadiz City as respondents. The injunction
case, on the other hand, was instituted by Spouses Medado, against (LBP) and
the Heirs of the Late Antonio Consing, as represented by
Dra. Soledad Consing. The primary litigants in the two action, and their
interests, are the same.

The two other elements are likewise satisfied. There is an identity of rights
asserted and reliefs prayed for in the two cases, with the reliefs being founded on
the same set of facts. In both cases, the parties claim their supposed right as
owners of the subject properties. They all anchor their claim of ownership on the
deeds of absolute sale, which they had executed, and the law applicable
thereto. They assert their respective rights, with Spouses Medado as buyers and
the heirs as sellers, based on the same set of facts that involve the deeds of
sale's contents and their validity. Both actions necessarily involve a ruling on
the validity of the same contract as against the same parties. Thus, the
identity of the two cases is such as would render the decision in the rescission
case res judicata in the injunction case, and vice versa.

It does not even matter that one action is for the enforcement of the
parties' agreements, while the other action is for the rescission thereof. In the
similar case of Victronics Computers, Inc. v. RTC, Branch 63, Makati,we
discussed: Civil Case No. 91-2069 actually involves an action for specific
performance; it thus upholds the contract and assumes its validity. Civil Case No.
91-2192, on the other hand, is for the nullification of the contract on the grounds
of fraud and vitiated consent. While ostensibly the cause of action in one is
opposite to that in the other, in the final analysis, what is being determined
JBD 143
is the validity of the contract. x x x Thus, the identity of rights asserted cannot
be disputed. Howsoever viewed, it is beyond cavil that regardless of the decision
that would be promulgated in Civil Case No. 91-2069, the same would
constitute res judicata on Civil Case No. 91-2192 and vice versa.(emphasis
supplied)

This was further explained in Casil v. CA, where we ruled:

The Court of Appeals held that there can be no res adjudicata because there is
no identity of causes of action between the two cases. We do not agree. In the
two cases, both petitioner and private respondent brought to fore the validity of
the agreement dated May 4, 1994. Private respondent raised this point as an
affirmative defense in her answer in the First Case. She brought it up again in
her complaint in the Second Case. A single issue cannot be litigated in more than
one forum. As held in Mendiola vs. Court of Appeals:

The similarity between the two causes of action is only too glaring. The
test of identity of causes of action lies not in the form of an action but on
whether the same evidence would support and establish the former and
the present causes of action. The difference of actions in the aforesaid
cases is of no moment. In Civil Case No. 58713, the action is to enjoin
PNB from foreclosing petitioner's properties, while in Civil Case No.
60012, the action is one to annul the auction sale over the foreclosed
properties of petitioner based on the same grounds. Notwithstanding a
difference in the forms of the two actions, the doctrine of res judicata still
applies considering that the parties were litigating for the same thing, i.e.
lands covered by TCT No. 27307, and more importantly, the same
contentions and evidence as advanced by herein petitioner in this case
were in fact used to support the former cause of action.

The CA was then correct in ordering the dismissal of the complaint in

Civil Case No. 797-C for violation of the rule against forum
shopping. The issue on the validity of the subject deeds of absolute sale
can best be addressed in the action for rescission, as against the case
for injunction filed by Spouses Medado. In a line of cases, we have set
the relevant factors that courts must consider when they have to
determine which case should be dismissed, given the pendency of
two actions, to wit:

(1) the date of filing, with preference generally given to the

first action filed to be retained;

(2) whether the action sought to be dismissed was filed merely

to preempt the latter action or to anticipate its filing and lay
the basis for its dismissal; and

(3) whether the action is the appropriate vehicle for litigating

the issues between the parties.
JBD 144
 We emphasize that the rules on forum shopping are meant to prevent such
eventualities as conflicting final decisions. This Court has consistently held that
the costly consequence of forum shopping should remind the parties to ever be
mindful against abusing court processes. In addition, the principle of res
judicata requires that stability be accorded to judgments. Controversies once
decided on the merits shall remain in repose for there should be an end to
litigation which, without the doctrine, would be endless.

Three ways of committing forum shopping-

1. filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and with the same
prayer, the previous case not having been resolved yet (where the ground
is litis pendentia);
2. filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and the same
prayer, the previous case having been finally resolved (where the ground
for dismissal is res judicata); and
3. filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action but with different
prayers (splitting of causes of action where the ground for dismissal is also
either litis pendentia or res judiciata) (Chua v. MetroBank, 596 SCRA 524,
535-536)

Rationale against forum shopping-

The rationale against forum shopping is that a party should not be allowed to
pursue simultaneous remedies in two different fora. Filing multiple petitions or
complaints constitutes abuse of court processes, which tends to degrade the
administration of justice, wreaks havoc upon orderly judicial procedure, and
adds to the congestion of the heavily burdened dockets of the court. Thus, the
rule proscribing forum shopping seeks to promote candor and transparency
before the courts to promote the orderly administration of justice, prevent undue
inconvenience upon the other party, and save the precious time of the courts. It
also aims to prevent the embarrassing situation of two or more courts or agencies
rendering conflicting resolutions or decisions upon the same issue (Huibonhoa
vs. Concepcion, supra).

Certification against forum shopping and Verification; requirements not

jurisdictional.

Sps. Eugene L. Lim and Constancia Lim v. The Court of Appeals-Mindanao

Station, et al.; G.R. No. 192615, January 30, 2013

In any case, it is settled that the requirements of verification and certification

against forum shopping are not jurisdictional. Verification is required to secure
an assurance that the allegations in the petition have been made in good
faith or are true and correct, and not merely speculative. Non-compliance
with the verification requirement does not necessarily render the pleading

JBD 145
fatally defective, and is substantially complied with when signed by one
who has ample knowledge of the truth of the allegations in the complaint or
petition, and when matters alleged in the petition have been made in good
faith or are true and correct.

On the other hand, the certification against forum shopping is required

based on the principle that a party litigant should not be allowed to pursue
simultaneous remedies in different fora. While the certification requirement
is obligatory, non-compliance or a defect in the certificate could be cured
by its subsequent correction or submission under special circumstances
or compelling reasons or on the ground of substantial compliance.

Effect of non-compliance

The failure to comply with the required certification is not curable by a mere
amendment and shall be a cause for the dismissal of the action (Sec. 5).

The dismissal is not to be done by the court motu proprio as the rule
requires that it shall be done upon motion and after hearing (Sec. 5)

The dismissal is, as a rule, without prejudice unless the order provides
otherwise (Sec. 5)

Certification against forum shopping; non-compliance is not curable by

subsequent submission unless there is substantial compliance or special
circumstance.

Mary Louise Anderson v. Enrique Ho, G.R. No. 172590. January 7, 2013

In this light, the Court finds that the CA correctly dismissed Andersons Petition
for Review on the ground that the certificate of non-forum shopping attached
thereto was signed by Atty. Oliva on her (Andersons) behalf sans any authority to
do so. While the Court notes that Anderson tried to correct this error by later
submitting an SPA and by explaining her failure to execute one prior to the filing
of the petition, this does not automatically denote substantial compliance. It must
be remembered that a defective certification is generally not curable by its
subsequent correction, and while it is true that in some cases the Court
considered such a belated submission as substantial compliance, it did so only
on sufficient and justifiable grounds that compelled a liberal approach while
avoiding the effective negation of the intent of the rule on non-forum shopping.

Certification against forum shopping; SPA designating counsel to sign

must be executed if party-pleader cannot sign.

Mary Louise Anderson v. Enrique Ho, G.R. No. 172590. January 7, 2013

The need to abide by the Rules of Court and the procedural requirements it
imposes has been constantly underscored by this Court. One of these procedural
JBD 146
requirements is the certificate of non-forum shopping which, time and again, has
been declared as basic, necessary and mandatory for procedural orderliness.

In Vda. De Formoso v. Philippine National Bank, the Court reiterated the

guidelines respecting non-compliance with or submission of a defective
certificate of non-forum shopping, the relevant portions of which are as
follows:

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

therewith or a defect therein, xxx, 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.
xxxx
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.

The requirement that it is the petitioner, not her counsel, who should sign
the certificate of non-forum shopping is due to the fact that a certification
is a peculiar personal representation on the part of the principal party, an
assurance given to the court or other tribunal that there are no pending
cases involving basically the same parties, issues and causes of action.
Obviously, it is the petitioner, and not always the counsel whose
professional services have been retained for a particular case, who is in the
best position to know whether [she] actually filed or caused the filing of a
petition in that case. Per the above guidelines, however, if a petitioner is
unable to sign a certification for reasonable or justifiable reasons, she must
execute an SPA designating her counsel of record to sign on her behalf. A
certification which had been signed by counsel without the proper authorization is
defective and constitutes a valid cause for dismissal of the petition.

Who executes the certification?

It is the plaintiff or principal party who executes the certification under oath.
(Sec. 5). The certification must be executed by the party, not the attorney
(Damasco vs. NLRC 346 SCRA 714).

It is the petitioner and not the counsel who is in the best position to know
whether he or it actually filed or caused the filing of a petition. A Certification
signed by counsel is a defective certification and is a valid cause for dismissal
(Far Eastern Shipping Company vs. CA 297 SCRA 30). This is the general and
prevailing rule.

JBD 147
Certifiction of non-forum shopping, Verification
ELSA D. MEDADO vs. HEIRS OF THE LATE ANTONIO CONSING,
as represented by DR.SOLEDAD CONSING,
G.R. No. 186720, February 8, 2012

Issues:

I. Whether or not the CA correctly admitted the petition

for certiorari filed before it, notwithstanding alleged deficiencies in its
verification and certification against forum shopping;

II. Whether or not the CA correctly admitted the petition

for certiorari filed before it even if no motion for reconsideration of the
RTCs Order dated March 9, 2007 was filed with the lower court; and

III. Whether or not the CA correctly held that the rule against forum
shopping was violated by the filing of the complaint for injunction during the
pendency of the action for rescission and damages.

In their comment on the petition, the respondents also raise as an issue

the failure of the petitioner to join her husband as a party to the petition,
considering that the action affects conjugal property.

Ruling:

As we ratiocinated in Heirs of Olarte v. Office of the President:

The general rule is that the certificate of

non-forum shopping must be signed by all the
plaintiffs in a case and the signature of only one of
them is insufficient. However, the Court has also
stressed that the rules on forum shopping were designed
to promote and facilitate the orderly administration of
justice and thus should not be interpreted with such
absolute literalness as to subvert its own ultimate and
legitimate objective. The rule of substantial compliance
may be availed of with respect to the contents of the
certification. This is because the requirement of strict
compliance with the provisions regarding the certification
of non-forum shopping merely underscores its mandatory
nature in that the certification cannot be altogether
dispensed with or its requirements completely
JBD 148
 disregarded. Thus, under justifiable circumstances, the
Court has relaxed the rule requiring the submission of
such certification considering that although it is obligatory,
it is not jurisdictional.

In HLC Construction and Development

Corporation v. Emily Homes Subdivision Homeowners
Association, it was held that the signature of only one of
the petitioners in the certification against forum shopping
substantially complied with [the] rules because all the
petitioners share a common interest and invoke a
common cause of action or defense.

The same leniency was applied by the Court

in Cavile v. Heirs of Cavile, because the lone petitioner
who executed the certification of non-forum shopping was
a relative and co-owner of the other petitioners with whom
he shares a common interest. x x x

xxx

Here, all the petitioners are immediate relatives who share

a common interest in the land sought to be reconveyed and a
common cause of action raising the same arguments in support
thereof. There was sufficient basis, therefore, for Domingo
Hernandez, Jr. to speak for and in behalf of his co-petitioners when
he certified that they had not filed any action or claim in another court
or tribunal involving the same issues. Thus, the
Verification/Certification that Hernandez, Jr. executed constitutes
substantial compliance under the Rules.[14] (citations omitted)

Furthermore, we have consistently held that verification of a pleading is a

formal, not a jurisdictional, requirement intended to secure the assurance that the
matters alleged in a pleading are true and correct. Thus, the court may simply
order the correction of unverified pleadings or act on them and waive strict
compliance with the rules. It 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.[15] It was based
on this principle that this Court had also allowed herein petitioner, via our
Resolution[16] dated April 22, 2009, a chance to submit a verification that
complied with Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, as amended, instead of us
dismissing the petition outright.

Liberal interpretation of the rule-

It has also been held that the rules on forum shopping, which were precisely
designed to promote and facilitate the orderly administration of justice, should

JBD 149
not be interpreted with such absolute literalness as to subvert its own ultimate
and legitimate objective which is the goal of all rules of procedure that is, to
achieve substantial justice as expeditiously as possible (Great Southern Maritime
Services Corp. vs. Acuna 452 SCRA 422). Hence, the rule is subject to the power
of the SC to suspend procedural rules and to lay down exceptions to the same.

Examples:

While a petition for certiorari is flawed where the certification of non-forum

shopping was signed only by counsel and not by the party, this procedural lapse
was overlooked by the Court in the interest of justice (Sy Chin vs. CA 345 SCRA
673). In another case, the fact that the parties were abroad at a time when the
petition was filed, was considered a reasonable cause to exempt the parties from
compliance with the requirement that they personally execute the certification
against forum shopping (Hamilton vs. Levy 344 SCRA 821). In De Guia vs. De
Guia 356 SCRA 287, the SC went to the extent of invoking its power to suspend
the Rules by disregarding the absence of the certification against forum
shopping in the interest of justice.

In Dar vs. Alonzo-Legato (339 SCRA 306) the Court ruled that where the
petitioners were sued jointly as Mr. and Mrs. over a property in which they
were alleged to have common interest, the signing of the certification by one
of the petitioners was held to be a substantial compliance of the rule. In a
subsequent ruling in the case of Docena vs. Lapesura (355 SCRA 658), where
only the husband signed the certificate against forum shopping in a petition
involving the conjugal residence of the spouses, the SC considered the
certification as having substantially complied with the requirements.

In Cavile vs. Heirs of Clarita Cavile (400 SCRA 255), a similar ruling was
made where the Court held that there was substantial compliance with the Rules
where only one petitioner signed the certification against forum shopping in
behalf of all the other petitioners being all relatives and co-owners of the
properties in dispute, and who shared a common interest in them, had a
common defense in the complaint for partition, filed the petition collectively, and
raised only one argument to defend their rights over the properties in question.

In Bases Conversion Development Authority GR No. 144062, November 2,

2006, while only one petitioner signed the verification and certification, it was
held that such fact is not fatal to the petition. The Court ruled that the signature
of a principal party satisfies the requirement because under the Rules it is
clear that the certification may be signed by a principal party.

In HLC Construction and Development Corp. vs. Emily Homes Subdivision

Homeowners Association 411 SCRA 504, the Court ruled that the signature of
only one petitioner substantially complied with the rules because all the

JBD 150
petitioners shared a common interest and invoked a common cause of action or
defense.

Lack of certification not cured by subsequent submission-

In appeal by certiorari to the Supreme Court, the lack of certification is
generally not curable by the submission thereof after the filing of the petition.
Sec. 5, Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules provides that failure of the petitioner to submit
the required documents that should accompany the petition, including the
certification, required in Sec. 4, Rule 45, shall be sufficient ground for the
dismissal thereof.

Exceptions
In certain exceptional circumstances, however, the Court has allowed the
belated filing of the certification. In all these cases, there were special
circumstances or compelling reasons that justified the relaxation of the rule.

Lack of authority to sign certification-

The same liberal construction applies to certifications against forum shopping
signed by the person on behalf of a corporation which are unaccompanied by
proof that said signatory is authorized to file a petition on behalf of the
corporation. A liberal interpretation is given to the rule more so where the
petitioner did submit a certification against forum shopping, but he failed
only to show proof that the signatory was authorized to do so. In several cases,
(Shipside Incorporated vs. CA 404 SCRA 981; Ateneo de Naga University vs.
Manalo 458 SCRA 325, etc) the Court permitted the subsequent submission of
proof of authority to sign the certification against forum shopping.

Signing the Certification when the plaintiff is a juridical person-

A juridical entity, unlike a natural person, can only perform physical acts
through properly delegated individuals. The certification against forum
shopping where the plaintiff or a principal party is a juridical entity, like a
corporation, may be executed by properly authorized persons. This person may
be the lawyer of the corporation. As long as he is duly authorized by the
corporation and has personal knowledge of the facts required to be disclosed
in the certification against forum shopping, the certification may be signed by
the authorized lawyer (National Steel Corporation vs. CA 388 SCRA 85).

Authority to sign Certification of Non Forum Shopping-

A board resolution purporting to authorize a person to sign documents on

behalf of the corporation must explicitly vest such authority. The signing of
verifications and certifications against forum shopping is not integral to the
act of filing; this may not be deemed as necessarily included in an authorization
merely to file cases. (MCWD vs. Margarita A. Adala, GR No. 168914, July 4, 2007)

JBD 151
Certification against forum shopping and Verification; ratification by the
Board of Directors.

Sps. Eugene L. Lim and Constancia Lim v. The Court of Appeals-

Mindanao Station, et al.; G.R. No. 192615, January 30, 2013

A closer look into the SPA and the Corporate Secretarys Certificate submitted
by BPI reveals that, at the time the subject complaint was filed on January 26,
1999, Ramos did not have the express authority to file and sign the verification
and certification against forum shopping attached to BPIs complaint. The SPA,
which appointed Ramos and/or Atty. Mateo G. Delegencia as BPIs attorneys-in-
fact in the case against the petitioners, was executed only on July 8, 2008. Even
the Corporate Secretarys Certificate that named the officers authorized by the
BPIs Executive Committee to grant and extend a SPA to other officers of the
bank was executed only on February 21, 2007. The Executive Committee is part
of the banks permanent organization and, in between meetings of BPIs Board of
Directors, possesses and exercises all the powers of the board in the
management and direction of the banks affairs.

BPIs subsequent execution of the SPA, however, constituted a

ratification of Ramos unauthorized representation in the collection case
filed against the petitioners. A corporation can act only through natural
persons duly authorized for the purpose or by a specific act of its board of
directors, and can also ratify the unauthorized acts of its corporate officers.
The act of ratification is confirmation of what its agent or delegate has done
without or with insufficient authority.

In PNCC Skyway Traffic Management and Security Division Workers

Organization (PSTMSDWO) v. PNCC Skyway Corporation, we considered the
subsequent execution of a board resolution authorizing the Union President to
represent the union in a petition filed against PNCC Skyway Corporation as an
act of ratification by the union that cured the defect in the petitions verification
and certification against forum shopping. We held that assuming that Mr.
Soriano (PSTMSDWOs President) has no authority to file the petition on
February 27, 2006, the passing on June 30, 2006 of a Board Resolution
authorizing him to represent the union is deemed a ratification of his prior
execution, on February 27, 2006, of the verification and certificate of non-forum
shopping, thus curing any defects thereof.

No appeal from an order of dismissal without prjudice; remedy is Certiorari

under R 65 or to refile

If a complaint is dismissed for failure to comply with required

certification, the plaintiff cannot appeal from such order. This is because
an order dismissing an action without prejudice is not appealable. The
remedy provided for under Sec. 1 of Rule 41 is to avail of the
appropriate special civil action under Rule 65 (Sec. 1[g], Rule 41 as
amended, Rules of Court.
JBD 152
Effect of willful and deliberate forum shopping

Pursuant to Sec. 5, it will result to a summary dismissal, that is,

without need of a motion to dismiss and hearing and the dismissal is
with prejudice. Appeal can be a roper remedy.

Effect of submission of a false certification

It shall constitute 1. indirect contempt 2. without prejudice to the

corresponding administrative and criminal sanctions (Sec.5)

Effect of non-compliance with the undertakings-

It has the same effect as the submission of a false certification (Sec.5), hence
shall constitute indirect contempt without prejudice to the corresponding
administrative and criminal sanctions (Sec. 5).

OTHER REQUIREMENTS

All pleadings, motions and papers filed in court by counsel shall bear in
addition to 1.) counsels current Professional Tax Receipt Number (PTR), 2.)
counsels current IBP official receipt number indicating its date of issue.
Pleadings motions and papers which do not comply with this requirement
may not be acted upon by the court, without prejudice to whatever
disciplinary action the court may take against the erring counsel who shall
likewise be required to comply with the requirement within 5 days from
notice. Failure to comply with such requirement shall be a ground for further
disciplinary sanction and for contempt of court (Circular No. 10, July 24, 1985;
Bar Matter No. 287, September 26, 2000.

On November 12, 2002, the SC granted the request of the Board of Governors
of the IBP and the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Ilocos Norte to require all
lawyers to indicate their 3.) Roll of Attorneys Number in all papers and
pleadings filed in judicial and quasi-judicial bodies in addition to the
previously required current PTR and IBP OR. The requirement is meant to
protect the public by making it easier to detect impostors who represent
themselves as members of the Bar. Non-compliance has the same effect as
failure to indicate counsels IBP Receipt Number. This requirement is directed
only to lawyers and is not to be construed as precluding a party who is not a
lawyer from signing a pleading himself (Bar Matter No. 1132, April 1, 2003)

All practicing lawyers are required to indicate in all pleadings filed before the
courts or quasi-judicial bodies, 4.) the number and date of issue of their
MCLE Certificate of Compliance or Certificate of Exemption. Failure to
disclose the information would cause the dismissal of the case and the

JBD 153
expunction of the pleading from the records (Bar Matter No. 1922 En Banc
Resolution, June 3, 2008). Per En Banc Resolution of the Supreme Court dated
September 2, 2008, the effectivity date of the implementation was moved from
August 25, 2008 to January 1, 2009.

Reviewer
Parts of a pleading (Rule 7)
a. Caption
The Caption contains the following:
1. Name of the court
2. Title of the action
3. Docket number, if assigned (Rule 7, Sec. 1)

The Body sets forth:

1. Designation
2. Allegations of the partys claims and defenses
3. Relief prayed for (may add a general prayer for such further or other relief as may
be deemed just and equitable)
4. Date of the pleading (Rule 7, Sec. 2)
b. Signature and address
Rule,7 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.

The signature of counsel constitutes a CERTIFICATE by him that

(a) he has read the pleading;
(b) to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief there is good ground to support it
;
and
(c) it is not interposed for delay.

An unsigned pleading produces NO LEGAL EFFECT. However, the court may, in its
discretion, allow such deficiency to be remedied if it shall appear that the same was due
to
mere inadvertence and not intended for delay.

Counsel who
(a) deliberately files an unsigned pleading, or
(b) signs a pleading in violation of this Rule, or
(c) alleges scandalous or indecent matter therein, or
(d) fails to promptly report to the court a change of his address, shall be subject to
appropriate DISCIPLINARY
ACTION.

c. Verification and certification against forum shopping

(1) Requirements of a corporation executing the verification/certification of
non-forum shopping

JBD 154
Verification
How is verification made?
It is verified by an affidavit which declares that the:
1. Affiant has READ the pleading; and
2. Allegations therein are TRUE AND CORRECT of his PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE or
BASED ON AUTHENTIC RECORDS (Rule 7, Sec. 4)
A pleading required to be verified which contains a verification based on information an
belief or upon knowledge, information and belief, or lacks a proper verification shall be
treated as an UNSIGNED pleading (Rule 7, Sec. 4).

What is the significance of verification?

It is intended to secure an assurance that the allegations in a 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. The absence of a proper verification is cause to treat the pleading as
unsigned and dismissible. (Chua vs. Torres, G.R. No. 151900, August 30, 2005)

Is verification a jurisdictional requirement?

NO. The requirement regarding verification of a pleading is a FORMAL, nor
jurisdictional. Such requirement is simply a condition affecting the form of a pleading,
non compliance with which does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective (Uy
vs. Land Bank of the Phils., 336 SCRA 419 [2000]).

The absence of the signature of the person misjoined as a party-plaintiff in either the
verification page or certification against forum-shopping is not a ground for the dismissal
of the action (Chua vs. Torres, G.R. No. 151900, August 30, 2005)
Forum Shopping

Certification against forum shopping is required in filing a complaint and other

initiatory pleadings asserting a claim or relief (Rule 7, Sec. 5). This rule applies as well
to special civil actions since the rules for ordinary civil action are suppletory.

When is there forum shopping?

There is forum shopping when, as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party
seeks a favorable opinion, other than by appeal or certiorari in another. There can also be
forum shopping when a party institutes two or more suits in different courts, either
simultaneously or successively, in order to ask the courts to rule on the same or related
causes and/or to grant the same or substantially the same reliefs on the supposition that
one or the other court would make a favorable disposition or increase a partys
chances of obtaining a favorable decision or action. (Huibonhoa v.
Concepcion, G.R. No. 153785, August 3, 2006)

Test to determine forum-shopping:

To determine whether a party violated the rule against forum shopping, the most
important question to ask is whether the elements of litis pendentia are present or
whether a final judgment in one case will result to res judicata in another.Thus, the test
is
whether in the two or more cases pending, there is identity of:
1. Parties
2. Rights or causes of action
JBD 155
3. Reliefs sought (Huibonhoa v. Concepcion, supra)
Who executes certification against forum-shopping?
It is the plaintiff or principal party who executes the certification under oath ( Rule 7,
Sec. 5).. It must be signed by the party himself and cannot be signed by his counsels. The
reason the certification against forum shopping is required to be accomplished by
petitioner himself is because only the petitioner himself has actual knowledge of whether
or not he has initiated similar actions or proceedings in different courts or agencies.
(Digital Microwave Corp. vs. CA, G.R. No. 128550, March 16, 2000).

What are the undertakings of a party under the certification against forum
shopping?
1. That the party has not commenced 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;
2. That if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present
status thereof;
3. That if he should therefore 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
aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed ( Rule 7, Sec. 5)

In what ways may forum shopping be committed?

1. Filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and with the same prayer, the
previous case not having been resolved yet (litis pendentia)
2. Filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and the same prayer, the
previous case having been finally resolved (res judicata )
3. Filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action but with different prayers
(splitting causes of action ) where the ground for dismissal is also either litis pendentia or
res judicata).

Effect of forum shopping

1. If the forum shopping is NOT considered WILFUL and DELIBERATE, the
subsequent cases shall be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE on one of the two
grounds mentioned above

Non-compliance with the rule on certification against forum shopping is not curable by
mere amendment and shall be a cause for the dismissal of action without prejudice,
unless otherwise provided, upon motion and after hearing (Rule 7, Sec.5)

2. If the forum shopping is WILFUL and DELIBERATE, both (or all, if there are more
than two actions) shall be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE (Ao-As vs. CA, 491 SCRA
353 [2006])

Willfull and deliberate forum shopping of the party or his counsel shall be a ground for
summary dismissal . This dismissal is with prejudice and shall constitute DIRECT
CONTEMPT as well as cause for administrative sanctions on the part of counsel. (Rule 7,
Sec. 5)

What are the requirements of forum shopping certificate for a corporation?

Only individuals vested with authority by a valid board resolution may sign the certificate
JBD 156
of non-forum shopping in behalf of a corporation. In addition, the Court has required that
proof of said authority must be attached. Failure to provide a certificate of non-forum
shopping is sufficient ground to dismiss the petition. Likewise, the petition is subject to
dismissal if a certification was submitted unaccompanied by proof of the signatory's
authority. (Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the
Philippines (FASAP), G.R. No. 143088. January 24, 2006)

*** Under Sections 4 and 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Revised Rules on Civil Procedure, a
pleading
must be accompanied by a verification as well as certification against forum shopping as
signed
by the plaintiff or principal party. As a general rule, a person signing in behalf of a
corporation
must be authorized by a board resolution. However, as exceptions, the following persons
can sign the verification and certification without a board resolution:
(1) the Chairperson of the Board of Directors,
(2) the President of a corporation,
(3) the General Manager or Acting General Manager,
(4) Personnel Officer, and
(5) an Employment Specialist in a labor case.
Nevertheless, the better procedure is still to append a board resolution to the
complaint or petition so as to not invite questions as to the authority of the signatory to
sign the verification and certification. (South Cotabato Communications Corporation
vs. Sto. Tomas, G.R. No. 173326, December 15, 2010 [TDC]) - TDC

However, subsequent submission of Secretarys Certificate is

substantial compliance with
the requirement that a Board Resolution must authorize the officer executing the non-
forum certification on behalf of the corporation. (Vicar International Construction,
Inc. vs. Feb Leasing and Financing Corp., G.R. No. 157195, April 22, 2005)

d. Effect of the signature of counsel in a pleading

The signature of counsel constitutes a certificate by him that
1. he has read the pleading;
2. that to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief there is good ground to
support it; and
3. that it is not interposed for delay. (par. 2, Rule,7 Sec. 3.)

JBD 157