Verification; Certification of Non-Forum Shopping; Under justifiable circumstances, circumstances, Courts have already allowed the relaxation relaxation of the requirements of verification and certification so that the ends of justice may be better served. On the requirement of a certification of non-forum shopping, the well-settled rule is that all the petitioners must sign the certification of non-forum shopping; The rule, however, admits of an exception and that is when the petitioners show reasonable cause for failure to personally sign the certification. certification.
ALTRES VS. EMPLEO
NORBERTO ALTRES, ET AL., petitioners, vs. CAMILO G. EMPLEO, ET AL., respondents.
G.R. No. 180986 December 10, 2008 Ponente: CARPIO MORALES, J.:
Toward the end of his term, Mayor Quijano issued appointments appointments to petitioners. In the meantime, the Sangguniang Panglungsod issued requesting a suspension of action on the processing of appointments to all vacant positions until the enactment of a new budget and another resolution holding transmission of all appointments. Respondent city accountant Empleo did not issue a certification as to availability of funds for the payment of salaries and wages of petitioners, as required in the LGU LGU appointment. The CSC Field Office for Lanao del Norte and Iligan City disapproved the appointments issued to petitioners invariably due to lack of certification of availability of funds. Mayor Quijano appealed to CSC but later dismissed due to lacks a requirement prescribed by the civil service law, rules and regulations, it would disapprove it without delving into the reasons why the requirement was not complied with. RTC:
NATURE OF CASE
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and order of the Regional Trial Court of Iligan City, Br. 3.
SC:
FACTS
Iligan Mayor Quijano advised CSC of its variou career positions in the city government, of which the latter proceeded its publication. Petitioners and other applicants submitted their applications for the
RTC denied petitioners’ petition for mandamus. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration and is subsequently denied as well.
The Court, without giving due course to the petition, required respondents to comment thereon within ten (10) days from notice, and at the same time required petitioners to comply, within the same period, with the relevant provisions of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Petitioners filed a Compliance Report as required. Respondents duly filed their Comment, alleging technical
Respondents assail as defective the verification and certification against forum shopping attached to the petition as it bears the signature of only 11 out of the 59 petitioners, and no competent evidence of identity was presented by the signing petitioners. They thus move for the dismissal of the petition Petitioners, on the other hand, argue that they have a justifiable cause for their inability to obtain the signatures of the other petitioners as they could no longer be contacted or are no longer interested in pursuing the case.
ISSUE/s of the CASE
Whether or not there is a defect in the v erifcation and certification against forum shopping.
ACTION OF THE COURT
SC:
Under justifiable circumstances, we have already allowed the relaxation of the requirements of verification and certification so that the ends of justice may be better served. 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; while the purpose of the aforesaid certification is to prohibit and penalize the evils of forum shopping. On the requirement of a certification of non-forum shopping, the well-settled rule is that all the petitioners must sign the certification of non-forum shopping. The reason for this is that the persons who have signed the certification cannot be presumed to have the personal knowledge of the other non-signing petitioners with respect to the filing or non-filing of any action or claim the same as or similar to the current petition. The rule, however, admits of an exception and that is when the petitioners show reasonable cause for failure to personally sign the certification. The petitioners must be able to convince the court that the outright dismissal of the petition would defeat the administration of justice.
GRANTED
COURT RATIONALE ON THE ABOVE CASE
Court held that in the present case, the signing of the verification by only 11 out of the 59 petitioners already sufficiently assures the Court that the allegations in the pleading are true and correct and not the product of the imagination or a matter of speculation; that the pleading is filed in good faith;A and that the signatories are unquestionably real parties-in-interest who undoubtedly have sufficient knowledge and belief to swear to the truth of the allegations in the petition.
Distinction 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. —
No.
1) A distinction must be made between non-compliance with the requirement on or submission of defective verification, and noncompliance 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
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.
WHEREFORE,
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.”
SO ORDERED.
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. 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 b ehalf.
the Court declares that it is Section 474(b)(4), not Section 344, of the Local Government Code of 1991, which applies to the requirement of certification of availability of funds under Section 1(e)(ii), Rule V of Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular Number 40, Series of 1998.
