Case Digest: PASCUAL and SANTOS, INC. v. THE MEMBERS OF THE TRAMO WAKAS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, INC.

PASCUAL and SANTOS, INC. v. THE MEMBERS OF THE TRAMO WAKAS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, INC.

        The Director of the Land Managment Bureau (LMB) granted the petition of respondent, The Members of the Tramo Wakas Neighborhood Association, Inc. (TRAMO WAKAS) which prayed for the grant of ownership over 3 parcels of land situated in Paranaque City. The same property is being claimed by petitioner Pascual and Santos Inc. (PSI). PSI appealed the said decision to higher adjudicatory bodies but was denied and dismissed for lack of merit.

           The Court of Appeals (CA) likewise dismissed the petition on the ground of Infirm Verification and Certification of Non-forum Shopping for the same does not show proof that the persons who signed therein were duly authorized by the corporation. The Court further ruled that the petition has not been filed on time.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the persons who executed the verification and certification of non-forum shopping attached to PSI‘s petition were authorized to do so

HELD:

Section 6 (d) of Rule 43 in relation to Section 2 of Rule 42 of the Rules of Court mandates that a petition for review shall contain a sworn certification against forum shopping in which the Pascual and Santos Inc. shall attest that he has not commenced any other action involving the same issues in this Court, the Court of Appeals or different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency; if there is such other action or proceeding, he must state the status of the same; and if he should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before this Court, the Court of Appeals, or different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency, he undertakes to promptly inform the aforesaid courts and other tribunal or agency thereof within five days therefrom.

For failure to comply with this mandate, Section 7 of Rule 43 provides that 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.

The Court has ruled that the subsequent submission of proof of authority to act on behalf of a petitioner corporation justifies the relaxation of the Rules for the purpose of allowing its petition to be given due course.

It must also be kept in mind that while the requirement of the certificate of non-forum shopping is mandatory, nonetheless the requirements must not be interpreted too literally and thus defeat the objective of preventing the undesirable practice of forum shopping.