WILSON GO and PETER GO vs.

ANITA RICO
G.R. No. 140862 April 25, 2006

Facts:

Wilson Go and Peter Go, petitioners, filed with the MeTC, Branch 40, Quezon City a
Complaint for Ejectment against defendants Pilar Rico (now deceased), mother of Anita Rico,
respondent herein, Catalina Pablico, Violeta Medrano, Elmer Molit, Osmando Pagdanganan, Bobby
Marquisas, Alexis Leynes, "and all persons claiming rights under them." In their complaint,
petitioners alleged that they are the registered owners of the land covered by Transfer Certificate of
Title No. 170475 of the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City, located at Retiro corner Kanlaon Streets,
same city; that on the land is an existing building with several units leased to the said individual
defendants; that the lease contracts had already expired, thus their continued stay in the leased
premises is on a month-to-month basis; that being "in dire need of the property for their exclusive
use," petitioners, through their lawyer, sent letters to the defendants, informing them that their
respective monthly lease contracts are being terminated and that they must vacate the leased
premises on July 15, 1997; and that despite notice, the defendants refused to do so. The MeTC
rendered a Decision ordering inter alia the ejectment of the defendants, including respondent herein.
As correctly pointed out by the plaintiffs, even without including the estate of the late Felisa Tamio de
Buenaventura as party-defendant, there can be a valid and final determination of this case. After all,
the defendants in this case have nothing to do with the cases pending before the RTC. Feeling
aggrieved, petitioners filed with the Court of Appeals a Petition for Review. The Court of Appeals
dismissed outright the petition for failure of the petitioners to comply with the Rule on Certification of
Non-Forum Shopping considering that a reading of the certification shows that it is the counsel for
the petitioners who has executed the same instead of the petitioners.

Issue:

Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in denying petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.

Held:

No. Failure to comply with the requirements on Certification against Forum Shopping 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 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. Here, petitioners admit
that neither of them signed the certification against forum shopping. Only their counsel did. It bears
stressing that a certification by counsel and not by the principal party himself is no certification at all.
The reason for requiring that it must be signed by the principal party himself is that he has actual
knowledge, or knows better than anyone else, whether he has initiated similar action/s in other
courts, agencies or tribunals. Clearly, the subject petition suffers from a fatal defect warranting its
dismissal by the Court of Appeals in its assailed Resolutions.
MEDISERV, INC. vs. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 161368 April 5, 2010

Facts:

Mediserv, Inc. executed a real estate mortgage in favor of China Banking Corporation as
security for a loan. Mediserv defaulted on its obligation with Chinabank and the real estate mortgage
was foreclosed. At the public auction sale, private respondent Landheights Development
Corporation emerged as the highest bidder. Landheights filed with the RTC of Manila an "Application
for Possession of Real Estate Property Purchased at an Auction Sale. Title of the property was
consolidated in favor of Landheights and the Register of Deeds for the City of Manila issued TCT
No. 242202 in its favor. Landheights, seeking to recover possession of the subject property, filed a
verified complaint for ejectment against Mediserv before the MeTC. Aggrieved, Mediserv
appealed the decision to the RTC of Manila. Judgment is hereby entered in favor of plaintiff and
against the defendant ordering the latter and all persons claiming rights under said entity to VACATE
the premises. Landheights filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals, which however
dismissed the petition in a Resolution, it appearing that the written authority of Dickson Tan to sign
the verification and certification on non-forum shopping, as well as the copies of the complaint and
answer, are not attached to the petition. Mediserv went to the Supreme Court and invoked Section 5,
Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, which provides that failure to comply with
the requirements on certification against forum shopping shall not be curable by mere amendment of
the complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for dismissal of the case. Petitioner thus
asserts that the appellate court acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess
of jurisdiction in reinstating the petition for review filed by respondent corporation.

Issue:

Whether or not the court gravely abused its discretion and acted without and/ or in excess of
jurisdiction.

Held:

No. The party need not sign the verification. A party’s representative, lawyer or any person
who personally knows the truth of the facts alleged in the pleading may sign the verification. The
Court has consistently held that the requirement regarding verification of a pleading is formal, not
jurisdictional. Such requirement is simply a condition affecting the form of the pleading, non-
compliance with which does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective. 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. The court may order the correction of the pleading if verification is lacking or act on the
pleading although it is not verified, if the attending circumstances are such that strict compliance with
the rules may be dispensed with in order that the ends of justice may thereby be served. On the
other hand, the lack of certification against forum shopping is generally not curable by the
submission thereof after the filing of the petition. In certain exceptional circumstances, however, the
Court has allowed the belated filing of the certification. Unquestionably, there is sufficient
jurisprudential basis to hold that Landheights has substantially complied with the verification and
certification requirements. There is substantial compliance with the Rules of Court when there is a
belated submission or filing of the secretary’s certificate through a motion for reconsideration of the
Court of Appeals’ decision dismissing the petition for certiorari.1avvp