Relaxation of technical requirements
The certification of non-forum shopping certifies that there is no like action pending with any court involving the same issues, parties and relief asked for.
Text size
The certification of non-forum shopping certifies that there is no like action pending with any court involving the same issues, parties and relief asked for.
In filing petitions with the courts, we litigators strictly observe procedural requirements, such as the petitioner’s execution of a verification and certificate of non-forum shopping. The verification attests that allegations in the petition are true and correct based on the petitioner’s own knowledge or on authentic documents.
The certification of non-forum shopping, on the other hand, certifies that there is no like action pending with any court involving the same issues, parties and relief sought. Both the verification and certificate of non-forum shopping must be notarized.
Obviously, the verification must be made, meaning executed and notarized, either on the same day or after the petition is dated, meaning made. Otherwise, how can the petitioner attest to the truthfulness of the allegations of a petition that has not been existent yet when it was verified?
Aside from this, if the petitioner is a corporation, its corporate secretary must execute a certificate that the signatory is indeed authorized by the petitioner-corporation to sign on its behalf. This is attached to the petition. Failure to comply with such requirements can result in the outright dismissal of the petition.
See how technical all these can be. It is not just a matter of submitting a document to the court, for its consideration. That is why I always inform my readers, especially my colleagues in the profession, to strictly adhere to procedural requirements. Courts are strict when it comes to these rules. They will not hesitate to dismiss for non-compliance.
In one case, though, the Supreme Court relaxed these stringent rules and explained why it did. Here is how the High Court discussed it.
“TTAI contends that Mr. Romeo J. Jorge, the chairperson and president of petitioner, had no authority to file the Petition in G.R. No. 201044 on behalf of Jorgenetics at the time of the filing thereof, and that the belated submission of the Board Resolution indicating Mr. Jorge’s authority and ratifying the filing of the Petition will not cure the defect. We disagree.
“In Cagayan Valley Drug Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, this Court ruled that certain officials or employees of a corporation can sign the verification and certification on its behalf without need of a board resolution, such as but not limited to the chairperson of the board of directors, the president of a corporation, the general manager or acting general manager, personnel officer, and an employment specialist in a labor case.
“Moreover, the ‘lack of authority of a corporate officer to undertake an action on behalf of the corporation may be cured by ratification through the subsequent issuance of a board resolution, recognizing the validity of the action or the authority of the concerned officer.’
“Given the foregoing, Mr. Jorge, as the chairperson and president of petitioner, is sufficiently authorized to sign the verification and certification on behalf of Jorgenetics. Any doubt on his authority to sign the verification and certification is likewise obviated by the secretary’s certificate it submitted upon the orders of this Court, which ratified Mr. Jorge’s authority to represent petitioner and file the Petition in G.R. No. 201044.
“TTAI alleges that the Petition in G.R. No. 222691 should be dismissed outright, since the verification and certification of non-forum shopping was signed by Mr. Jorge and notarized a day prior to the date of the Petition. This contention must fail.
“The purpose of a verification in the petition is 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.
“In connection thereto, a variance in the date of the verification with the date of the petition is not necessarily fatal to Jorgenetics’ case since the variance does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that no verification was made, or that the verification was false. It does not necessarily contradict the categorical declaration made by Jorgenetics in its affidavit that its representatives read and understood the contents of the pleading.
“To demand the litigants to read the very same document that is to be filed in court is too rigorous a requirement. [W]hat 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. [W]hat is important is that efforts were made to satisfy the objective of the Rule, that is, to ensure good faith and veracity in the allegations of a pleading, thereby allowing the courts to act on the case with reasonable certainty that the petitioners’ real positions have been pleaded.
“We find the verification and certification of non-forum shopping attached to the Petition in G.R. No 222691 sufficiently compliant in achieving the said objective.”
The quoted portion of the decision is from Jorgenetics Swine Improvement Corporation v. Thick & Thin Agri-Products Incorporated (G.R. Nos. 201044 and 222691, 5 May 2021).
