My fellow litigators, this is a must read for you. We all know that rules of procedure must be strictly complied with. At times however, we invoke the liberality rule when compliance was not faithfully made. Thus we ask the court’s indulgence to make the procedural rules more flexible in the interest of substantial justice.
Naturally, this argument does not always work. Courts look into the specific circumstances and weigh if liberality should be favored, so as not to deprive the movant his day in court. The case I wish to tackle today involves the lack of verification and certificate of non-forum shopping in a petition filed with the Court of Appeals (CA). When the appellate court dismissed outright her petition, the party subsequently complied and begged the court for leniency. When her plea was not heard, she asked the Supreme Court for leniency. The Highest Tribunal, however, refused to give her its nod. This is how it ruled on the issue.
“The Court finds no reversible error when the CA dismissed the petition outright for being the wrong remedy and because the petition suffers from several procedural infirmities. Petitioner averred that her failure to attach a verification and a certificate against forum shopping in the petition she filed with the CA was merely due to inadvertence. She pleaded for liberal application of the rules claiming that her subsequent submissions of the verification and a certification against forum shopping, including all required documents, constituted substantial compliance with the rules. The Court is not convinced.”
In Quitalig v. Quitalig, the Court reiterated the following guidelines, as well as exceptions with respect to non-compliance with the requirements on, or submission of a defective, verification and certification against forum shopping, viz.:
1) A distinction must be made between non-compliance with the requirement on or submission of defective verification, and non-compliance with the requirement on or submission of defective certification against forum shopping.
2) As to verification, 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) Verification 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.
4) As to certification against forum shopping, non-compliance therewith or a defect therein, unlike in verification, 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 certification 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 justifiable 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.
Courts look into the specific circumstances and weigh if liberality should be favored, so as not to deprive the movant his day in court.
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. (Underlining and italics in the original citation omitted)
Applying these guidelines here, the dismissal of the CA petition was warranted. A review of the alleged subsequent correction and submission by the petitioner shows that the same was still inadequate. As observed by the CA, the verification and a certificate against forum shopping lack attestation. In addition, petitioner merely submitted the first page of her Position Paper and nothing more. Evidently, the averred subsequent submission made by petitioner was far from substantial.
It is stressed that the right to appeal is neither a natural right nor is it a component of due process. It is a mere statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the law and rules.
It has been repeatedly emphasized that the rules of procedure should be treated with utmost respect and due regard since they are designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases to remedy the worsening problem of delay in the resolution of rival claims and in the administration of justice. Procedural rules must be faithfully complied with and should not be discarded by the mere expediency of claiming substantial merit. The relaxation or suspension of procedural rules or the exemption of a case from their operation is warranted only by compelling reasons or when the purpose of justice requires it. No compelling or justifiable reason was offered by the petitioner in this case.”
We all must therefore be very meticulous in filing cases. I always have a checklist of procedural requirements to ensure utmost compliance. As I always tell my associates, losing based on a technicality is a mortal sin. It is an unforgivable act. The client has gone to you for relief. And yet you just added to his problem. So to my fellow litigators, let this case serve as a constant reminder that compliance with procedural rules is paramount. With faithful compliance, there is no need to ask for liberaility.
The quoted salient portion of the decision is from Caridad Pacheco v. Jimmy F. Reyes, G.R. 268216, 26 February 2024.