THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 199107. August 30, 2017.]

ALFONSO SINGSON CORTAL, JUANITO SINGSON CORTAL, NENITA

CODILLA, GENEROSO PEPITO LONGAKIT, PONCIANA BATOON, AND
GREGORIA SABROSO , petitioners, vs. INAKI A. LARRAZABAL
ENTERPRISES, represented by INAKI P. LARRAZABAL, JR., THE
HONORABLE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, REGIONAL OFFICE NO. VIII,
TACLOBAN CITY and THE HONORABLE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT
OF AGRARIAN REFORM, QUEZON CITY in his capacity as chairman
of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) ,
respondents.

DECISION

LEONEN , J : p

Procedural rules must be faithfully followed and dutifully enforced. Still, their
application should not amount to "plac[ing] the administration of justice in a
straightjacket." 1 An inordinate xation on technicalities cannot defeat the need for a
full, just, and equitable litigation of claims.
AaCTcI

This resolves a Petition for Review on Certiorari 2 under Rule 45 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure, praying that the assailed September 30, 2010 3 and
September 7, 2011 4 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 04659 be
reversed and set aside, and that the Court of Appeals be directed to give due course to
the dismissed appeal of Alfonso Singson Cortal, Juanito Singson Cortal, Nenita Codilla,
Generoso Pepito Longakit, Ponciana Batoon, and Gregoria Sabroso (petitioners).
The assailed Court of Appeals September 30, 2010 Resolution dismissed
petitioners' appeal under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure on account of
several technical defects. First was an inconsistency between the listing of petitioners'
names in their prior Motion for Extension of Time and subsequent Petition for Review,
in which the accompanying veri cation and certi cation of non-forum shopping were
laden with this same inconsistency and other defects. Second was the non-inclusion of
the original Complaint led by the adverse party, now private respondent Inaki A.
Larrazabal Enterprises, before the Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator of the
Department of Agrarian Reform. And last was petitioners' counsel's failure to indicate
the place of issue of the o cial receipt of his payment of annual membership dues to
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. 5
The assailed Court of Appeals September 7, 2011 Resolution denied petitioners'
Motion for Reconsideration. 6
Private respondent Inaki A. Larrazabal Enterprises (Larrazabal Enterprises)
owned three (3) parcels of land in Sitio Coob, Barangay Libertad, Ormoc City: Lot No.
5383-G, with an area of 7.6950 hectares and covered by Transfer Certi cate of Title
(TCT) No. 10530; Lot No. 5383-N, with an area of 5.7719 hectares and covered by TCT
No. 10530; and Lot No. 5383-F, with an area of 8.7466 hectares and covered by TCT
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 No. 16178. 7
In 1988, these three (3) parcels were placed under the Compulsory Acquisition
Scheme of Presidential Decree No. 27, as amended by Executive Order No. 228.
Pursuant to the Scheme, Emancipation Patents and new transfer certi cates of title
were issued to farmer-beneficiaries, petitioners included. 8
In 1999, Larrazabal Enterprises led its Action for Recovery of these parcels
against the Department of Agrarian Reform and the petitioners before the O ce of the
Regional Adjudicator, Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB). 9 It
assailed the cancellation of its transfer certificates of title and the subsequent issuance
of new titles to petitioners. It alleged that no price had been xed, much less paid, for
the expropriation of its properties, in violation of the just compensation requirement
under Presidential Decree No. 27, as amended. Thus, it prayed for the recovery of these
lots and the cancellation of petitioners' transfer certificates of title. 1 0
In their Answer, petitioners denied non-payment of just compensation. They
presented certi cations issued by the Land Bank of the Philippines (Landbank) that the
amounts of P80,359.37 and P95,691.49 had been deposited as payments in the name
of Larrazabal Enterprises. 1 1 They added that since they had paid, the cancellation of
Larrazabal Enterprises' transfer certi cates of title, the subdivision of the parcels, and
the issuance of emancipation patents in their favor were all properly made. 1 2
In his October 15, 1999 Decision, 1 3 Regional Adjudicator Felixberto M. Diloy
(Regional Adjudicator Diloy) noted that there was nothing in the records to show that
just compensation was xed or paid for the parcels. 1 4 Hence, he ruled in favor of
Larrazabal Enterprises and ordered that it be restored to ownership of the lots. 1 5
Petitioners appealed to the DARAB. In its September 16, 2008 Decision, 1 6 the
DARAB reversed the Decision of Regional Adjudicator Diloy. 1 7 It ruled that Larrazabal
Enterprises' action, which was led in 1999, was already barred by prescription and
laches, as the assailed Emancipation Patents were issued in 1988. 1 8 It likewise gave
credence to the certi cates issued by Landbank, which con rmed the payment of just
compensation. 1 9
Larrazabal Enterprises led a Motion for Reconsideration. In its September 30,
2009 Resolution, 2 0 the DARAB reversed its own decision and granted Larrazabal
Enterprises' Motion for Reconsideration. 2 1 It justi ed its ruling by saying that
Larrazabal Enterprises had been denied due process when the parcels were taken from
it without having been given just compensation. 2 2 EcTCAD

Petitioners then led a Petition for Review before the Court of Appeals. In its
assailed September 30, 2010 Resolution, 2 3 the Court of Appeals dismissed their
Petition for the following formal errors:
a. the name of Raymundo Claros Codilla was indicated in the Motion for
Extension of Time to File Petition for Review as one of the petitioners, but
in the Petition for Review and in the Veri cation and Certi cation of Non-
Forum Shopping, his name was no longer indicated[;]
b. the Veri cation and Certi cation of Non-Forum Shopping failed to show
any competent evidence of identity of the petitioners, Alfonso Singson
Cortal, Juanito Singson Cortal, Nenita Codilla, Cenon Baseles, Felimon
Almacin Batoon, Rodrigo Panilag Cabonillas, Generoso Pepito Longakit,
Exopiro Limgas Cabonillas, Jose Panilag Cabonillas, Avelino Panilag
Cabonillas, Ricardo Estrera German and Victoria Rosales, at least one
current identi cation document issued by an o cial agency bearing the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 photographs and signatures of petitioners, in violation of Sec. 2.(2) Rule IV
of the Rules of Notarial Practice[;]
c. petitioners failed to attach the copy of the Complaint led by respondent
Inaki A. Larrazabal Enterprises before the O ce of the Regional
Adjudicator, Tacloban City, docketed as DARAB Case No. E.O. No. 288
(sic); and
d. counsel for the petitioners, Atty. Norjue I. Juego did not indicate the place
of issue of his [Integrated Bar of the Philippines] number. 2 4
Following the dismissal of their Petition for Review, petitioners led a Motion for
Reconsideration. In its assailed September 7, 2011 Resolution, 2 5 the Court of Appeals
denied petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration.
Thus, this Petition was filed.
For resolution of this Court is the sole issue of whether or not the dismissal of
petitioners' appeal was justified by the errors noted by the Court of Appeals.
It was not.

Appeal is the remedy available to a litigant seeking to reverse or modify a

judgment on the merits of a case. 2 6 The right to appeal is not constitutional or natural,
and is not part of due process 2 7 but is a mere statutory privilege. 2 8 Thus, it must be
availed in keeping with the manner set by law and is lost by a litigant who does not
comply with the rules. 2 9
Nevertheless, appeal has been recognized as an important part of our judicial
system and courts have been advised by the Supreme Court to cautiously proceed to
avoid inordinately denying litigants this right. 3 0

II

Procedural rules "are tools designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases [so]
[c]ourts and litigants alike are thus enjoined to abide strictly by the rules." 3 1 They
provide a system for forestalling arbitrariness, caprice, despotism, or whimsicality in
dispute settlement. Thus, they are not to be ignored to suit the interests of a party. 3 2
Their disregard cannot be justi ed by a sweeping reliance on a "policy of liberal
construction." 3 3
Still, this Court has stressed that every party litigant must be afforded the fullest
opportunity to properly ventilate and argue his or her case, "free from the constraints of
technicalities." 3 4 Rule 1, Section 6 of the Rules of Court expressly stipulates their liberal
construction to the extent that justice is better served:
Section 6. Construction. — These Rules shall be liberally construed in order
to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition
of every action and proceeding.
Procedural rules may be relaxed for the most persuasive of reasons so as "to
relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of his
thoughtlessness in not complying with the procedure prescribed." 3 5 This Court has
noted that a strict application of the rules should not amount to straight-jacketing the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 administration of justice 3 6 and that the principles of justice and equity must not be
sacri ced for a stern application of the rules of procedure. 3 7 In Obut v. Court of
Appeals: 3 8
We cannot look with favor on a course of action which would place the
administration of justice in a straightjacket for then the result would be a poor
kind of justice if there would be justice at all. Verily, judicial orders, such as the
one subject of this petition, are issued to be obeyed, nonetheless a non-
compliance is to be dealt with as the circumstances attending the case may
warrant. What should guide judicial action is the principle that a party-litigant is
to be given the fullest opportunity to establish the merits of his complaint of
defense rather than for him to lose life, liberty, honor or property on
technicalities. 3 9 (Emphasis supplied) HSAcaE

Nevertheless, alluding to the "interest of substantial justice" should not

automatically compel the suspension of procedural rules. 4 0 While they may have
occasionally been suspended, it remains basic policy that the Rules of Court are to be
faithfully observed. A bare invocation of substantial justice cannot override the
standard strict implementation of procedural rules. 4 1 In Spouses Bergonia v. Court of
Appeals: 4 2
The petitioners ought to be reminded that the bare invocation of "the
interest of substantial justice" is not a magic wand that will automatically
compel this Court to suspend procedural rules. Procedural rules are not to be
belittled or dismissed simply because their non-observance may have resulted
in prejudice to a party's substantive rights. Like all rules, they are required to be
followed except only for the most persuasive of reasons when they may be
relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of
his thoughtlessness in not complying with the procedure prescribed. 4 3
(Emphasis supplied)
In Barnes v. Padilla , 4 4 this Court relaxed the 15-day period to perfect an appeal
to serve substantial justice; and identi ed situations justifying a liberal application of
procedural rules:
[T]his Court has relaxed this rule in order to serve substantial justice considering
(a) matters of life, liberty, honor or property, (b) the existence of special or
compelling circumstances, (c) the merits of the case, (d) a cause not entirely
attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of
the rules, (e) a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous
and dilatory, and (f) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby. 4 5
A petition for review led out of time was entertained by this Court in Yong Chan
Kim v. People 4 6 as it considered the strict application of the rules as unjustly depriving
the accused of his liberty. It appeared that no party stood to suffer substantial injury if
the accused were to be extended an opportunity to be heard. 4 7
Telan v. Court of Appeals 4 8 gave due course to a belatedly led petition. Finding
that the petitioners were assisted by someone who misrepresented himself to be a
lawyer, it held that denying an opportunity for relief to petitioners, despite the
misrepresentation, was tantamount to depriving them of their right to counsel. 4 9 It
underscored that in criminal cases, the right to counsel is immutable as its denial could
amount to a peremptory deprivation of a person's life, liberty, or property. 5 0 It stated
that the right to counsel was just as important in civil cases: 5 1
There is no reason why the rule in criminal cases has to be different from
that in civil cases. The preeminent right to due process of law applies not only
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 to life and liberty but also to property. There can be no fair hearing unless a
party, who is in danger of losing his house in which he and his family live and in
which he has established a modest means of livelihood, is given the right to be
heard by himself and counsel. 5 2

III

Judgments and nal orders of quasi-judicial agencies are appealed to the Court
of Appeals through petitions for review under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure. Rule 43 was adopted in order to provide uniform rules on appeals from
quasi-judicial agencies. 5 3
Rule 43 appeals shall be taken through the ling of a veri ed petition for review
with the Court of Appeals, 5 4 within 15 days from notice of the appealed action. 5 5
Rule 43, Section 6 specifies the required contents of Rule 43 petitions:
Section 6. Contents of the Petition. — The petition for review shall (a) state
the full names of the parties to the case, without impleading the court or
agencies either as petitioners or respondents; (b) contain a concise statement of
the facts and issues involved and the grounds relied upon for the review; (c) be
accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or a certi ed true copy of the
award, judgment, nal order or resolution appealed from, together with certi ed
true copies of such material portions of the record referred to therein and other
supporting papers; and (d) contain a sworn certi cation against forum
shopping as provided in the last paragraph of Section 2, Rule 42. The petition
shall state the speci c material dates showing that it was led within the period
fixed herein.
Rule 43, Section 7 stipulates that failure to comply with these requisites may be
sufficient ground for dismissing the appeal:
Section 7. Effect of Failure to Comply with Requirements. — The failure of
the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements regarding the
payment of the docket and other lawful fees, the deposit for costs, proof of
service of the petition, and the contents of and the documents which should
accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof. HESIcT

IV

In its assailed September 30, 2010 Resolution, the Court of Appeals dismissed
petitioners' appeal for purely formal defects and without discussing the merits of the
case: 5 6
After a cursory examination of the instant Petition for Review led by
petitioner under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules in Civil Procedure, the same reveals
the following defects:
a. the name of Raymundo Claros Codilla was indicated in the Motion
for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review as one of the
petitioners, but in the Petition for Review and in the Veri cation and
Certi cation of Non-Forum Shopping, his name was no longer
indicated[;]
b. the Veri cation and Certi cation of Non-Forum Shopping failed to
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 show any competent evidence of identity of the petitioners, Alfonso
Singson Cortal, Juanito Singson Cortal, Nenita Codilla, Cenon
Baseles, Felimon Almacin Batoon, Rodrigo Panilag Cabonillas,
Generoso Pepito Longakit, Exopiro Limgas Cabonillas, Jose Panilag
Cabonillas, Avelino Panilag Cabonillas, Ricardo Estrera German and
Victoria Rosales, at least one current identi cation document issued
by an o cial agency bearing the photographs and signatures of
petitioners, in violation of Sec. 2.(2) Rule IV of the Rules of Notarial
Practice[;]
c. petitioners failed to attach the copy of the Complaint led by
respondent Inaki A. Larrazabal Enterprises before the O ce of the
Regional Adjudicator, Tacloban City, docketed as DARAB Case No.
E.O. No. 288 (sic) ; and
d. counsel for the petitioners, Atty. Norjue I. Juego did not indicate the
place of issue of his [Integrated Bar of the Philippines] number. 5 7
Contrary to the Court of Appeals' conclusion, this Court does not consider these
defects to have been so fatal as to peremptorily deny petitioners the opportunity to
fully ventilate their case on appeal.

IV.A

Rule 7, Sections 4 and 5 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure articulate the basic
rules concerning the veri cation of pleadings and their accompaniment by a
certification of non-forum shopping:
Section 4. Veri cation. — Except when otherwise speci cally required by
law or rule, pleadings need not be under oath, veri ed or accompanied by
affidavit.
A pleading is veri ed by an a davit that the a ant has read the
pleading and that the allegations therein are true and correct of his knowledge
and belief.
A pleading required to be veri ed which contains a veri cation based on
"information and belief," or upon "knowledge, information and belief," or lacks a
proper verification, shall be treated as an unsigned pleading.
Section 5. Certification Against Forum Shopping. — The plaintiff or principal
party shall certify under oath in the complaint or other initiatory pleading
asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn certi cation annexed thereto and
simultaneously led therewith: (a) that he has not theretofore commenced any
action or led any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or
quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his knowledge, no such other action or
claim is pending therein; (b) if there is such other pending action or claim, a
complete statement of the present status thereof; and (c) if he should thereafter
learn that the same or similar action or claim has been led or is pending, he
shall report that fact within ve (5) days therefrom to the court wherein his
aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.
Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be curable by
mere amendment of the complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be
cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless otherwise provided,
upon motion and after hearing. The submission of a false certi cation or non-
compliance with any of the undertakings therein shall constitute indirect
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 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.
An a ant veri es a pleading to indicate that he or she has read it and that to his
or her knowledge and belief, its allegations are true and correct and that it has been
prepared in good faith and not out of mere speculation. 5 8 Jurisprudence has
considered the lack of veri cation as a mere formal, rather than a jurisdictional, defect
that is not fatal. Thus, courts may order the correction of a pleading or act on an
unveri ed pleading, if the circumstances would warrant the dispensing of the
procedural requirement to serve the ends of justice. 5 9
Altres v. Empleo , 6 0 outlined the differences "between non-compliance with the
requirement on or submission of defective veri cation, and non-compliance with the
requirement on or submission of defective certification against forum shopping": caITAC

1) A distinction must be made between non-compliance with the

requirement on or submission of defective veri cation and non-compliance with
the requirement on or submission of defective certi cation against forum
shopping.
2) As to veri cation, 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) Veri cation 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 veri cation , and when matters alleged in the petition have
been made in good faith or are true and correct.
4) As to certi cation against forum shopping, non-compliance therewith or
a defect therein, unlike in veri cation, 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 certi cation 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 justi able 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 certi cation against forum shopping must be executed by the
party-pleader, not by his counsel. If, however, for reasonable or justi able
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. 6 1 (Emphasis
supplied, citations omitted)
Thus, in Torres v. Specialized Packaging Development Corporation , 6 2 this Court
gave due course to a petition even if the veri cation and certi cation against forum
shopping were not signed by all of the parties. 6 3 Though there were 25 petitioners in
Torres, this Court held that the signatures of just two (2) of them in the veri cation
were suitable, substantial compliance considering that they were "unquestionably real
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 parties in interest, who undoubtedly have su cient knowledge and belief to swear to
the truth of the allegations in the Petition." 6 4 On the lacking signatures in the certi cate
of non-forum shopping, this Court noted that the petitioners have shown that "there
was reasonable cause for the failure of some of them to sign the certi cation against
forum shopping, and that the outright dismissal of the Petition would defeat the
administration of justice." 6 5
In Cavile v. Heirs of Clarita Cavile , 6 6 this Court held that the signing by only one
(1) of the 22 petitioners on the certi cate of non-forum shopping 6 7 was substantial
compliance as the petitioners had a common interest in the property involved, they
being relatives and co-owners of that property. 6 8
Cavile 6 9 was echoed in Heirs of Agapito Olarte v. O ce of the President , 7 0
where the certi cation of non-forum shopping, signed by only two (2) of four (4)
petitioners, 7 1 was condoned considering that the petitioners shared a common
interest over the lot subject of that case. 7 2
In the same vein, the inclusion of Raymundo Claros Codilla (Codilla) in the Motion
for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review but not in the Petition for Review and in
the veri cation and certi cate of non-forum shopping 7 3 should not have been fatal to
petitioners' appeal. The defective veri cation amounted to a mere formal defect that
was neither jurisdictional nor fatal and for which a simple correction could have been
ordered by the Court of Appeals. 7 4 Petitioners here, too, are acting out of a common
interest. Even assuming that a strict application of the rules must be maintained, the
Court of Appeals could just as easily have merely dropped Codilla as a party instead of
peremptorily and indiscriminately foreclosing any further chance at relief to those who
had affixed their signatures. 7 5

IV.B

Equally not fatal to petitioners' appeal was their supposed failure to show
competent evidence of identities in their petition's veri cation and certi cation of non-
forum shopping.
Rule IV, Section 2 (b) (2) of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice 7 6 stipulates that
a notary public is not to perform a notarial act if the signatory to the document subject
to notarization is not personally known to the notary or otherwise identi ed through a
competent evidence of identity:
SECTION 2. Prohibitions. — . . .
xxx xxx xxx
(b) A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as
signatory to the instrument or document — ICHDca

xxx xxx xxx

(2) is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise
identified by the notary public through competent evidence of
identity as defined by these Rules.
Competent evidence of identity enables the notary to "verify the genuineness of
the signature of the acknowledging party and to ascertain that the document is the
party's free act and deed." 7 7 Rule II, Section 12 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice
elaborates on what is "competent evidence of identity":
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Section 12. Competent Evidence of Identity. — The phrase "competent
evidence of identity" refers to the identification of an individual based on:
(a) at least one current identi cation document issued by an o cial agency
bearing the photograph and signature of the individual, such as but not
limited to, passport, driver's license, Professional Regulations Commission
ID, National Bureau of Investigation clearance, police clearance, postal ID,
voter's ID, Barangay certi cation, Government Service and Insurance
System (GSIS) e-card, Social Security System (SSS) card, Philhealth card,
senior citizen card, Overseas Workers Welfare Administration (OWWA) ID,
OFW ID, seaman's book, alien certi cate of registration/immigrant
certi cate of registration, government o ce ID, certi cation from the
National Council for the Welfare of Disabled Persons (NCWDP),
Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) certification; or
(b) the oath or a rmation of one credible witness not privy to the instrument,
document or transaction who is personally known to the notary public and
who personally knows the individual, or of two credible witnesses neither
of whom is privy to the instrument, document or transaction who each
personally knows the individual and shows to the notary public
documentary identification. 7 8
As is evident from Rule IV, Section 2 (b) (2) of the 2004 Rules on Notarial
Practice, the need for a competent evidence of identity is not an absolute requirement.
It is imperative only when the signatory is not personally known to the notary. 7 9 When
the signatory is personally known to the notary, the presentation of competent
evidence of identity is a superfluity.
Heirs of Amada Zaulda v. Zaulda , 8 0 which concerned the Court of Appeals' prior
determination that a senior citizen card is not among the competent evidence of
identity recognized in the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, referred to the more basic
consideration that a defect in a pleading's veri cation is merely formal, and not
jurisdictional or otherwise fatal:
Even assuming that a photocopy of competent evidence of identity was
indeed required, non-attachment thereof would not render the petition fatally
defective. It has been consistently held that veri cation is merely a formal, not
jurisdictional, requirement, affecting merely the form of the pleading such that
non-compliance therewith does not render the pleading fatally defective. It is
simply intended to provide an assurance that the allegations are true and
correct and not a product of the imagination or a matter of speculation, and that
the pleading is led in good faith. The court may in fact order the correction of
the pleading if veri cation is lacking or it may act on the pleading although it
may not have been veri ed , where it is made evident that strict compliance with
the rules may be dispensed so that the ends of justice may be served. 8 1
(Emphasis supplied, citation omitted)
In Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. v. Dela Cruz , 8 2 the petitioner bewailed the
notary public's failure to "indicate that the a ants were personally known to the notary
public, [or to] identify the a ants through competent evidence of identity other than
their community tax certi cate." 8 3 The petitioner's objection, while correctly pointing
out a deficiency, failed to convince this Court that a fatal defect existed:
[T]he defect is a technical and minor one; the respondents did le the required
veri cation and certi cation of non-forum shopping with all the respondents
properly participating, marred only by a glitch in the evidence of their identity. In
the interest of justice, this minor defect should not defeat their petition and is
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 one that we can overlook in the interest of substantial justice[.] 8 4
In this case, the Court of Appeals' bare reference to petitioners' inadequate proof
of identity does not justify the outright denial of their appeal. The Court of Appeals
failed to absolutely discount the possibility that petitioners may have been personally
known to the notary public, especially considering that, by that advanced stage in
litigating their claims, they must have already veri ed several pleadings, likely before
the same notary public.
It is true that the notary public failed to categorically indicate that petitioners
were personally known to him. 8 5 Coca-Cola demonstrates, however, that even if this
were the case, the notary public's lapse is not fatal. While the circumstances were
concededly less than ideal, Coca-Cola did not obsess on how only community tax
certi cates were indicated in the veri cation and certi cation of non-forum shopping.
86

This Court elects to be liberal here, as it was in Coca-Cola. Even conceding the
lapses noted by the Court of Appeals, petitioners had not gotten themselves into an
irremediable predicament. This Court repeats that, ultimately, a defective veri cation is
merely a formal and not a fatal, jurisdictional defect, which could have very easily been
ordered corrected. 8 7 As to the defective certi cation of non-forum shopping, the
greater cause of justice should have impelled the Court of Appeals, as this Court
implored in Altres v. Empleo , 8 8 to have at least enabled petitioners to rectify their
lapse, rather than completely deny them a chance at exhaustive litigation by a mere
stroke of its pen. TCAScE

IV.C

Rule 43, Section 6 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure states that a veri ed
petition for review must "be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or a
certi ed true copy of the award, judgment, nal order or resolution appealed from,
together with certi ed true copies of such material portions of the record referred to
therein and other supporting papers." 8 9
I n Quintano v. National Labor Relations Commission , 9 0 this Court faulted the
Court of Appeals for dismissing a Rule 65 petition on account of failure to include in the
petition a copy of the Complaint initially brought before the Labor Arbiter. Referencing
Rule 65's own requirement that the petition shall be "accompanied by a certi ed true
copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and
documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and a sworn certi cation of non-forum
shopping," 9 1 this Court explained that appending a copy of an original complaint is not
even required:
The Rules do not specify the precise documents, pleadings or parts of the
records that should be appended to the petition other than the judgment, nal
order, or resolution being assailed. The Rules only state that such documents,
pleadings or records should be relevant or pertinent to the assailed resolution,
judgment or orders; as such, the initial determination of which pleading,
document or parts of the records are relevant to the assailed order, resolution, or
judgment, falls upon the petitioner. 9 2
Given this Rule's generic reference to "copies of all pleadings and documents
relevant and pertinent thereto," 9 3 this Court explained that:
The [Court of Appeals] will ultimately determine if the supporting documents are
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 su cient to even make out a prima facie case. If the [Court of Appeals] was of the view
that the petitioner should have submitted other pleadings, documents or portions of
the records to enable it to determine whether the petition was su cient in substance, it
should have accorded the petitioner, in the interest of substantial justice, a chance to
submit the same instead of dismissing the petition outright. Clearly, this is the better
policy. 9 4
Quintano was echoed in Panaga v. Court of Appeals . 9 5 There, a petition for
certiorari was dismissed by the Court of Appeals for failure to include an a davit of
proof of service and after appending only the decisions of the Labor Arbiter and the
National Labor Relations Commission. 9 6 This Court explained that the petition's
annexes su ced as the Labor Arbiter's decision already recounted the material
allegations in the pleadings of the parties and would have been enough for the Court of
Appeals to determine whether there was a prima facie case. 9 7
Quintano was further echoed in Valenzuela v. Caltex Philippines, Inc. , 9 8 where
this Court stated that "the failure to submit certain documents, assuming there was
such a failure on respondent's part, does not automatically warrant outright dismissal
of its petition." 9 9
Quintano equally holds true here. Though Quintano was concerned with a Rule 65
petition and this case with a Rule 43 petition, the crucial procedural rule here is
substantially the same as that in which Quintano hinged. As with Rule 65's generic
reference to "copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto," 1 0 0
Rule 43 also only references "material portions of the record referred to . . . and other
supporting papers." 1 0 1
To be sure, the determination of what is su ciently pertinent to require inclusion
in a pleading is not a whimsical exercise. Air Philippines Corporation v. Zamora laid
down guideposts for determining the necessity of the pleadings or parts of the
records. It also clari ed that even if a pertinent document was missing, its subsequent
submission was no less fatal:
First, not all pleadings and parts of case records are required to be
attached to the petition. Only those which are relevant and pertinent must
accompany it. The test of relevancy is whether the document in question will
support the material allegations in the petition, whether said document will
make out a prima facie case of grave abuse of discretion as to convince the
court to give due course to the petition.
Second, even if a document is relevant and pertinent to the petition, it
need not be appended if it is shown that the contents thereof can also [be]
found in another document already attached to the petition. Thus, if the material
allegations in a position paper are summarized in a questioned judgment, it will
suffice that only a certified true copy of the judgment is attached.
Third, a petition lacking an essential pleading or part of the case record
may still be given due course or reinstated (if earlier dismissed) upon showing
that petitioner later submitted the documents required, or that it will serve the
higher interest of justice that the case be decided on the merits. 1 0 2 (Citations
omitted, emphasis supplied) cTDaEH

Here, petitioners' failure to attach a copy of the complaint originally led by

Larrazabal Enterprises before the DARAB should not have been fatal to their Rule 43
petition. Its inclusion was not absolutely required, as it was certainly not "the award,
judgment, nal order or resolution appealed from." 1 0 3 If, in the Court of Appeals'
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 judgment, it was a material document, the more prudent course of action would have
been to afford petitioners time to adduce it, not to make a justi cation out of it for
dispossessing petitioners of relief.

IV.D

Through Bar Matter No. 287, "this court required the inclusion of the 'number and
date of [lawyers'] o cial receipt indicating payment of their annual membership dues
to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for the current year'; in lieu of this, a lawyer may
indicate his or her lifetime membership number": 1 0 4
Effective August 1, 1985, all lawyers shall indicate in all pleadings, motions and
papers signed and led by them in any court in the Philippines, the number and
date of their o cial receipt indicating payment of their annual membership
dues to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for the current year; provided,
however, that such o cial receipt number and date for any year may be availed
of and indicated in all such pleadings, motions and papers led by them in
court up to the end of the month of February of the next succeeding year. 1 0 5
Indicating the place of issue of the o cial receipt is not even a requirement.
While its inclusion may certainly have been desirable and would have allowed for a more
consummate disclosure of information, its non-inclusion was certainly not fatal. As with
the other procedural lapses considered by the Court of Appeals, its non-inclusion could
have very easily been remedied by the Court of Appeals' prudent allowance of time and
opportunity to petitioners and their counsel.

This Court entertains no doubt that petitioners' Petition for Review, which the
Court of Appeals discarded, falls within the exceptions to the customary strict
application of procedural rules. This Court has previously overlooked more compelling
procedural lapses, such as the period for ling pleadings and appeals. The Court of
Appeals was harsh in denying petitioners the opportunity to exhaustively ventilate and
argue their case.
Rather than dwelling on procedural minutiae, the Court of Appeals should have
been impelled by the greater interest of justice. It should have enabled a better
consideration of the intricate issues of the application of the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Law, social justice, expropriation, and just compensation. The reversals of
rulings at the level of the DARAB could have been taken as an indication that the
matters at stake were far from being so plain that they should be ignored on mere
technicalities. The better part of its discretion dictated a solicitous stance towards
petitioners.
The present Petition must be granted. The Court of Appeals must give due
course to petitioners' appeal to enable a better appreciation of the myriad substantive
issues which have otherwise not been pleaded and litigated before this Court by the
parties.
WHEREFORE , the Petition for Review on Certiorari is GRANTED . The assailed
September 30, 2010 and September 7, 2011 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. SP No. 04659 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE . The Court of Appeals is ordered to
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 give due course to the petition subject of CA-G.R. SP No. 04659.
SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr., Bersamin, Martires and Gesmundo, JJ., concur.
Footnotes

1. Obut v. Court of Appeals, 162 Phil. 731, 744 (1976) [Per J. Muñoz-Palma, First Division).
2. Rollo, pp. 13-26.

3. Id. at 27-29. The Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Agnes Reyes-Carpio and
concurred in by Associate Justices Edgardo L. Delos Santos and Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr.
of the Twentieth Division, Court of Appeals, Cebu City.
4. Id. at 30-31. The Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. and
concurred in by Associate Justices Edgardo L. Delos Santos and Ramon Paul L.
Hernando of the Special Former Twentieth Division, Court of Appeals, Cebu City.

5. Id. at 28-29.
6. Id. at 31.

7. Id. at 61, DARAB Decision.

8. Id. at 61-62, DARAB Decision.

9. Id. at 49, DARAB Decision.

10. Id. at 49-50, DARAB Decision.

11. Id. at 64-65, DARAB Decision.

12. Id. at 50, DARAB Decision.

13. Id. at 49-54, The Decision was penned by Regional Adjudicator Felixberto M. Diloy.
14. Id. at 51-52, Office of the Regional Adjudicator Decision.

15. Id. at 53-54, Office of the Regional Adjudicator Decision.

16. Id. at 59-66. The Decision was penned by Assistant Secretary Augusto P. Quijano and
concurred in by Assistant Secretary Edgar A. Igano, Assistant Secretary Del n B.
Samson, and Assistant Secretary Patricia Rualo-Bello of the DARAB. Secretary Nasser C.
Pangandaman, Undersecretary Gerundio C. Madueño, and Undersecretary Renato F.
Herrera did not sign the Decision.
17. Id. at 66.

18. Id. at 62.

19. Id. at 65.

20. Id. at 71-76.

21. Id. at 75-76.

22. Id. at 73-75.

23. Id. at 27-29.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 24. Id. at 28-29.

25. Id. at 30-31.

26. Mercado v. Court of Appeals , 245 Phil. 49, 62 (1988) [Per J. Navasa, First Division]; see also
Association of Integrated Security Force of Bislig (AISFB) — ALU v. Court of Appeals , 505
Phil. 10, 18 (2005) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Second Division] citing Sawadjaan v. Court of
Appeals, 498 Phil. 552 (2005) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, En Banc].
2 7 . Tropical Homes, Inc. v. National Housing Authority , 236 Phil. 580, 587 (1987) [Per J.
Gutierrez, En Banc]; see also Polintan v. People of the Philippines , 604 Phil. 42, 47 (2009)
[Per J. Carpio, First Division]; Yu v. Samson-Tatad , 657 Phil. 431, 436 (2011) [Per J.
Brion, Third Division] citing Philips Seafood (Philippines) Corporation v. Board of
Investments, 597 Phil. 649 (2009) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division]; Balagtas Multi-
Purpose Cooperative, Inc. v. Court of Appeals , 536 Phil. 511, 522 (2006) [Per J. Azcuna,
Second Division].
28. Spouses Plopenio v. Department of Agrarian Reform , 690 Phil. 126, 131 (2012) [Per J.
Sereno, Second Division]; R Transport Corporation v. Philippine Hawk Transport
Corporation, 510 Phil. 130, 135-136 (2005) [Per J. Quisumbing, First Division].
2 9 . Tropical Homes, Inc. v. National Housing Authority , 236 Phil. 580, 587 (1987) [Per J.
Gutierrez, En Banc]; see also Bejarasco, Jr. v. People of the Philippines , 656 Phil. 337,
341 (2011) [Per J. Bersamin, Third Division]; Lepanto Consolidated Mining Corporation v.
Icao, 724 Phil. 646, 656 (2014) [Per C.J. Sereno, First Division].
30. National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority v. Municipality of Libmanan , 186 Phil. 79, 84
(1980) [Per J. De Castro, First Division].
31. Garbo v. Court of Appeals, 327 Phil. 780, 784 (1996) [Per J. Francisco, Third Division].

32. Sebastian v. Morales, 445 Phil. 597, 605 (2003) [Per J. Quisumbing, Second Division].
3 3 . Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals , G.R. No. 221636, July 11, 2016
<http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?
file=/jurisprudence/2016/july2016/221636.pdf> [Per J. Jardeleza, Third Division].

34. A-One Feeds, Inc. v. Court of Appeals , 188 Phil. 577, 580 (1980) [Per J. De Castro, First
Division].
35. Asian Spirit Airlines v. Spouses Bautista , 491 Phil. 476, 483 (2005) [Per J. Callejo, Sr.,
Second Division]; Asia United Bank v. Goodland Company, Inc., 650 Phil. 174, 185 (2010)
[Per J. Nachura, Second Division] citing Sebastian v. Hon. Morales , 445 Phil. 595, (2003)
[Per J. Quisumbing, Second Division]; Sy v. Local Government of Quezon City , 710 Phil.
549, 557 (2013) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, Second Division].
36. Obut v. Court of Appeals, 162 Phil. 731, 744 (1976) [Per J. Muñoz-Palma, First Division].

37. Paredes v. Verano , 535 Phil. 274, 289 (2006) [Per J. Tinga, Third Division] citing RULES OF
COURT, Rule I, sec. 6., Obut v. Court of Appeals , 162 Phil. 731 (1976) [Per J. Muñoz-
Palma, First Division], Heirs of the Late F. Nuguid vda. De Haberer v. Court of Appeals,
192 Phil. 61 (1981) [Per J. Teehankee, First Division], Al-Amanah Islamic Investment
Bank of the Philippines v. Celebrity Travel and Tours, Inc. , 479 Phil. 1041 (2004) [Per J.
Callejo, Sr., Second Division].

38. 162 Phil. 731 (1976) [Per J. Muñoz-Palma, First Division].

39. Id. at 744.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 40. Lazaro v. Court of Appeals, 386 Phil. 412, 417 (2000) [Per J. Panganiban, Third Division].

41. Id.

42. 680 Phil. 334 (2012) [Per J. Reyes, Second Division].

43. Spouses Bergonia v. Court of Appeals , 680 Phil. 334, 343 (2012) [Per J. Reyes, Second
Division] citing Lazaro v. Court of Appeals , 386 Phil. 412 (2000) [Per J. Panganiban,
Third Division].

44. 482 Phil. 903 (2004) [Per J. Austria-Martinez, Second Division].

45. Barnes v. Padilla , 482 Phil. 903, 914-915 (2004) [Per J. Austria-Martinez, Second Division]
citing Sanchez v. Court of Appeals, 452 Phil. 665 (2003) [Per J. Bellosillo, En Banc].
46. 257 Phil. 283 (1989) [Per J. Padilla, Second Division].
47. Id. at 292.

48. 279 Phil. 587 (1991) [Per J. Sarmiento, Second Division].

49. Id. at 595-596.

50. Id. at 594.

51. Id.
52. Id. at 598.

53. Carpio v. Sulu Resources Development Corporation, 435 Phil. 836, 844 (2002) [Per J.
Panganiban, Third Division].
54. RULES OF COURT, Rule 43, sec. 5.

55. RULES OF COURT, Rule 43, sec. 4:

  Section 4. Period of appeal. — The appeal shall be taken within fteen (15) days from
notice of the award, judgment, nal order or resolution, or from the date of its last
publication, if publication is required by law for its effectivity, or of the denial of
petitioner's motion for new trial or reconsideration duly led in accordance with the
governing law of the court or agency a quo. Only one (1) motion for reconsideration shall
be allowed. Upon proper motion and the payment of the full amount of the docket fee
before the expiration of the reglementary period, the Court of Appeals may grant an
additional period of fteen (15) days only within which to le the petition for review. No
further extension shall be granted except for the most compelling reason and in no case
to exceed fifteen (15) days.

56. Rollo, p. 16.

57. Id. at 7-8.

58. In the matter of the change of name of Antonina B. Oshita v. Republic , 125 Phil. 1098, 1100
(1967) [Per J. Zaldivar, En Banc]; see also P zer, Inc. v. Galan , 410 Phil. 483, 492 (2001)
[Per C.J. Davide, Jr., First Division] citing Robern Development Corporation v. Quintain ,
373 Phil. 773 (1999) [Per J. Panganiban, En Banc]; Medado v. Heirs of Antonio Consing ,
681 Phil. 536, 545 (2012) [Per J. Reyes, Second Division] citing Republic v. Coalbrine
International Philippines, Inc., 631 Phil. 487 (2010) [Per J. Peralta, Third Division].
59. In the matter of the change of name of Antonina B. Oshita v. Republic , 125 Phil. 1098, 1101
(1967) [Per J. Zaldivar, En Banc] see also P zer, Inc. v. Galan , 410 Phil. 483, 492 (2001)
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 [Per C.J. Davide, Jr., First Division] citing Robern Development Corporation v. Quintain ,
373 Phil. 773 (1999) [Per J. Panganiban, En Banc].
60. 594 Phil. 246 (2008) [Per J. Carpio-Morales, En Banc].

61. Altres v. Empleo, 594 Phil. 246, 261-262 (2008) [Per J. Carpio-Morales, En Banc].
62. 477 Phil. 540 (2004) [Per J. Panganiban, First Division].

63. Id. at 543.

64. Id. at 550.

65. Id. at 55.

66. 448 Phil. 302 (2003) [Per J. Puno, Third Division].

67. Id. at 310.

68. Id. at 311.

69. 448 Phil. 302 (2003) [Per J. Puno, Third Division].

70. 499 Phil. 562, 567-569 (2005) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, First Division].

71. Heirs of Agapito Olarte v. O ce of the President , 499 Phil. 562, 564 (2005) [Per J. Ynares-
Santiago, First Division].
72. Id. at 568-569.

73. Rollo, p. 7.

74. In the matter of the change of name of Antonina B. Oshita v. Republic , 125 Phil. 1098, 1101
(1967) [Per J. Zaldivar, En Banc] See also P zer, Inc. v. Galan , 410 Phil. 483, 492 (2001)
[Per C.J. Davide, Jr., First Division] citing Robern Development Corporation v. Quintain ,
373 Phil. 773 (1999) [Per J. Panganiban, En Banc].

75. Altres v. Empleo, 594 Phil. 246, 260 (2008) [Per J. Carpio-Morales, En Banc].
76. Adm. Matter No. 02-8-13-SC (2004).

77. Dela Cruz-Sillano v. Pangan , 592 Phil. 219, 227 (2008) [Per J. Carpio, First Division] citing
Bernardo v. Ramos, 433 Phil. 8 (2002) [Per J. Bellosillo, Second Division].
78. Adm. Matter No. 02-8-13-SC (2008).

79. Reyes v. Glaucoma Research Foundation, Inc. , 760 Phil. 779, 786 (2015) [Per J. Peralta,
Third Division].

80. 729 Phil. 639 (2014) [Per J. Mendoza, Third Division].

81. Id. at 650.

82. 622 Phil. 886 (2009) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].

83. Id. at 898.

84. Id. at 900.

85. Rollo, p. 46.

86. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. v. Dela Cruz , 622 Phil. 886, 898 (2009) [Per J. Brion,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Second Division].

8 7 . Heirs of Amada Zaulda v. Zaulda , 729 Phil. 639, 650 (2014) [Per J. Mendoza, Third
Division].
88. 594 Phil. 246 (2008) [Per J. Carpio-Morales, En Banc].

89. RULES OF COURT, Rule 43, sec. 6, Emphasis supplied.

90. Quintano v. National Labor Relations Commission , 487 Phil. 412, 424 (2004) [Per J. Callejo,
Sr., Second Division].

91. RULES OF COURT, Rule 65, secs. 1 and 2 state:

  Section 1. Petition for certiorari. — . . .

    The petition shall be accompanied by a certi ed true copy of the judgment, order or
resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent
thereto, and a sworn certi cation of non-forum shopping as provided in the third
paragraph of Section 3, Rule 46.
  Section 2. Petition for prohibition. — . . .

    The petition shall likewise be accompanied by a certi ed true copy of the judgment,
order or resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and
pertinent thereto, and a sworn certi cation of non-forum shopping as provided in the
third paragraph of section 3, Rule 46.
92. Quintano v. National Labor Relations Commission , 487 Phil. 412, 424 (2004) [Per J. Callejo,
Sr., Second Division].

93. RULES OF COURT, Rule 65, secs. 1 and 2.

94. Quintano v. National Labor Relations Commission , 487 Phil. 412, 424 (2004) [Per J. Callejo,
Sr., Second Division].

95. 534 Phil. 809 (2006) [Per J. Carpio-Morales, Third Division].

96. Id. at 812.

97. Id. at 815-816.

98. 653 Phil. 187 (2010) [Per J. Villarama, Jr., Third Division].
99. Valenzuela v. Caltex Philippines , 653 Phil. 187, 197, (2010) [Per J. Villarama, Jr., Third
Division].

100. RULES OF COURT, Rule 65, secs. 1 and 2.

101. RULES OF COURT, Rule 43, sec. 6.

102. Air Philippines Corporation v. Zamora , 529 Phil. 718, 728 (2006) [Per J. Austria-Martinez,
First Division].
103. RULES OF COURT, Rule 43, sec. 6.

104. Intestate Estate of Jose Uy v. Atty. Maghari , 768 Phil. 10, 23-24 (2015) [Per J. Leonen, En
Banc].
105. OCA Circ. No. 10-85 (1985).
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com