Uy v. CA

ANICETO UY, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS, MINDANAO STATION, CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY, CARMENCITA NAVAL-SAI, REP.
BY
HER ATTORNEY-IN- FACT RODOLFO FLORENTINO, Respondents.
G.R. No. 173186, September 16, 2015
FACTS: Private respondent Carmencita Naval-Sai filed a Complaint for Annulment of Deed with Damages before the RTC in
Kidapawan City against petitioner. The subject of the complaint was the deed of sale allegedly executed between Naval-Sai and
petitioner involving Lots No. 54-B-8 and No. 54-B-9. Naval-Sai prayed that the deed of sale be declared null and void ab initio
because the alleged sale between her and petitioner was a forgery. Naval-Sai argued that she never sold the lots and that her
signature in the purported deed of sale is spurious. Petitioner claimed that he and Naval-Sai entered into a valid contract of sale and
that the lots were sold for value. The corresponding TCTs were issued in his name shortly thereafter and since then, he had been in
complete control of the properties. Petitioner also raised special and affirmative defenses of, among others, non-compliance with
the requisite certification of non-forum shopping and prescription. He asserted that jurisdiction has never been acquired over the
parties and the subject matter because the certification against forum shopping in the Amended Complaint was defective, for having
been merely signed by Naval-Sai's counsel.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred when it ruled that there was substantial compliance with the requirements on
certification of non-forum shopping.
HELD: No. There was substantial compliance with the requirements on certification against forum shopping.
A certification against forum shopping is a peculiar and personal responsibility of the party, an assurance given to the
court or other tribunal that there are no other pending cases involving basically the same parties, issues and causes of action. It
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 (SPA) designating his counsel of record to sign on his behalf.
Here, the original complaint contained a proper verification and certification against forum shopping duly signed by Naval-
Sai as plaintiff. The verification and certification in the amended complaint, on the other hand, was only signed by her counsel, Atty.
Norberta L. Ela. Atty. Ela was not authorized to sign on behalf of Naval-Sai, as in fact, she assigned one Rodolfo Florentino as agent.
The Court of Appeals pointed out that in the certification in the amended complaint, Atty. Ela specified that it should be taken and
read together with the original complaint. The Court of Appeals took this as a cautionary move on the part of Naval-Sai, justifying
the relaxation of the rules on the ground of substantial compliance. We find, however, that this cautionary move is ineffectual
because under the Rules of Civil Procedure, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. For all intents and purposes,
therefore, the original complaint and its verification and certification ceased to exist. This, notwithstanding, we find there was still
substantial compliance with the Rules.
In the case of Far Eastern Shipping Company v. Court of Appeals, while we said that, strictly, a certification against forum
shopping by counsel is a defective certification, the verification, signed by petitioner's counsel in said case, is substantial compliance
because it served the purpose of the Rules of informing the Court of the pendency of another action or proceeding involving the
same issues. We then explained that procedural rules are instruments in the speedy and efficient administration of justice which
should be used to achieve such end and not to derail it.
We also find that the prima facie merits of the case serve as a special circumstance or a compelling reason to relax the
rules on certification against forum shopping. We nonetheless chose to overlook the procedural lapses in the interest of
substantial justice and the existence of prima facie merit in the petitions.
We have ruled that the general rule is that non-compliance or a defect in the certification is not curable by its
subsequent submission or correction. However, there are cases where we exercised leniency and relaxed the rules on the ground
of substantial compliance, the presence of special circumstances or compelling reasons. The rules on forum-shopping are
designed to promote and facilitate the orderly administration of justice and "should not be interpreted with such absolute
literalness as to subvert its own ultimate and legitimate objective or the goal of all rules of procedure- which is to achieve
substantial justice as expeditiously as possible."

Uy v. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Uy v. CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Uy v. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ANICETO UY, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS, MINDANAO STATION, CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY, CARMENCITA NAVAL-SAI, REP.

You might also like