6. Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping

Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping for Juridical Entities

It is true that the power of a corporation to sue and be sued is lodged in the board of directors that exercises its corporate powers. Physical acts of the corporation, like the signing of documents, can be performed only by natural persons duly authorized for the purpose by corporate by-laws or by a specific act of the board of directors. (Republic v. Coalbrine Int’l., G.R. No. 161838, 2010)

However, the following officials or employees of the company can sign the verification and certification

VERIFICATION and CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING

FORUM SHOPPING

It consists of filing multiple suits in different courts, either simultaneously or successively, involving the same parties, to ask the courts to rule on the same related causes and/or to grant the same or substantially the same relief.

The CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING is executed by the PLAINTIFF or the PRINCIPAL PARTY under oath and must be signed by the party himself/herself and not merely by his attorney.

A certification against forum shopping signed by counsel is a defective certification that is equivalent to non-compliance with the requirement and constitutes a valid cause for the dismissal of the petition. (Ty-De Zuzuarregui v. Villarosa, G.R. No. 183788, 2010)

Updated: A defective certification against forum shopping may warrant dismissal, but courts may temper that consequence in special circumstances and consider timely efforts to cure the defect (Philippine Savings Bank v. Hipolito, G.R. No. 200671, 14 May 2021; Tongonan v. Buaya, G.R. No. 204183, 20 June 2018).

The Certification Against Forum Shopping is a Sworn Statement Certifying to the Following Matters:

• That the party has not commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in anycourt, tribunal, or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his/her knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein;
• That if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof; and
• That if he/she should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, he/she shall report that fact within 5 days therefrom to the court wherein his/her complaint or initiatory pleading was been filed. (Rule 7, Sec. 5)

The certificate of non-forum shopping is a mandatory requirement in filing a complaint and other initiatory pleadings asserting a claim or relief. (Rule 7, Sec. 5)

An initiatory pleading includes:

• Permissive counterclaim;
• Cross-claim;
• Third (fourth, etc.)-Party complaint;
• Complaint-in-intervention; and
• Petition or any application in which a party asserts his claim for relief. (A.M. No. 04-94)

Failure to comply with the requirements is not curable by mere amendment of the pleading but shall be cause for dismissal of the case, WITHOUT prejudice, unless otherwise provided. Dismissal shall be UPON MOTION and AFTER hearing.

To determine Forum Shopping, the test is to see whether, in the two or more cases pending, there is:

• Identity of parties;
• Identity of rights and causes; and
• Identity of reliefs sought. (Huibonhoa v. Concepcion, G.R. No. 153785, 2006)

Thus, forum shopping exists when the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another.

Updated: Defective verification or certification does not invariably require dismissal: courts may consider timely corrections and substantial-justice exceptions, while the established forum-shopping test remains unchanged (Philippine Savings Bank v. Hipolito, G.R. No. 200671, 14 May 2021).

Three Ways of Committing Forum Shopping

• Filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and with the same prayer, the previous not having been resolved (litis pendencia);
• Filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and with the same prayer, the previous having been resolved with finality (res judicata); and
• Filing multiple cases based on the same causes of action but with different prayers (splitting causes of action where the ground for dismissal is also either litis pendentia or res judicata).

If the forum shopping is not willful and deliberate, the subsequent cases shall be dismissed without prejudice on one of the two grounds mentioned above. But if the forum shopping is willful and deliberate, both (or all, if there are more than two) actions shall be dismissed with prejudice.(Heirs of Sotto v. Palicte, G.R. No. 159691, 2014)

Effects of Willful and Deliberate Forum Shopping:

• Shall be ground for summary dismissal of the case with;
• Direct contempt; and
• A cause for administrative sanctions.

In order to be held liable for willful and deliberate forum shopping, there should be, on the party’s part, either a failure to include the certification in one's initiatory pleading, or a misrepresentation as to the pendency of another case involving the same issues, parties, and causes of actions with the second complaint. But where plaintiff files his second complaint, after the court with jurisdiction over the first complaint had granted a dismissal order, and such dismissal order has attained finality, the plaintiff cannot be made liable for forum shopping. (Daswani v. BDO Universal, G.R. No. 190983, 2015)

Updated: A certification defect may be cured or excused in appropriate circumstances and does not alone establish willful forum shopping (Philippine Savings Bank v. Hipolito, G.R. No. 200671, 14 May 2021; Tongonan v. Buaya, G.R. No. 204183, 20 June 2018).

REQUIREMENT OF A CORPORATION EXECUTING THE VERIFICATION/ CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING

The certification may be executed by an authorized person as long as he/she is duly authorized by the corporation and has personal knowledge of the facts required to be disclosed in the certification against forum shopping, the certification may be signed by the authorized lawyer. (National Steel Corporation v. CA, G.R. No. 134468, 2002)

If the petitioner is a corporation, a board resolution authorizing a corporate officer to execute the certification against forum shopping is necessary— a certification not signed by a duly authorized person renders the petition subject to dismissal. (Gonzales v. Climax Mining Ltd., 452 SCRA 607, 2005)

Where a general manager of a corporation signs the verification and certification against forum shopping without attaching therewith a Corporate Secretary’s certificate or board resolution that he is authorized to sign for and on behalf of the petitioner-corporation, such failure is NOT fatal to the complaint of the corporation. This is especially true where the requisite board resolution was subsequently submitted to the court together with the pertinent documents. The dismissal on a purely technical ground is frowned upon especially if it will result in unfairness. The rules of procedure ought not to be applied in a very rigid, technical sense for they have been adopted to help secure, not override, substantial justice. (Mid-land Pasig Land Development Co. v. Mario Tablante, G.R. No. 162924, 2010)

There is substantial compliance with the rules regarding the need for an authorized person to sign the certificate when a corporate officer, previously empowered via board resolution to sign the certification against forum shopping, executes a special power of attorney in favor of a manager of the corporation, and it is the latter who signs the verification and certificate against forum shopping.

In other words, the power granted by a corporation to a corporate officer to sign the verification and certificate may be further delegated, via special power of attorney, to another. (Fuji Television Network v. Espiritu, G.R. No. 204944-45, 2014)

A Counsel Shall be Subject to Disciplinary Action in the Following Cases:

• When he/she deliberately files an unsigned pleading;
• When he/she signs a pleading in violation of the Rules;
• When he/she alleges in the pleading scandalous or indecent matter;
• When he/she fails to promptly report to the court a change of his/her address. (Rule 7, Sec. 3)

Differentiating the Rules on Verification and Certificate Against Forum Shopping (Fuji Television Network v. Espiritu, G.R. No. 204944-45, 2014)

Q: The Republic, through the OSG, filed a Complaint for Cancellation of Title and Reversion against X. X had acquired the property for which a TCT was issued. However, the property subject of this case was found inside the Fort Stotsenburg Military Reservation (now known as Clark Air Force Base), which military reservation was never released as alienable and disposable land of the public domain. X argued that the Republic is not the real party-in-interest in this case, as the Fort Stotsenburg Military Reservation is under the direct control and ownership of the Bases Conversion Development Authority (BCDA) pursuant to Proclamation No. 163, s. 1993. RA 7227, the Bases Conversion and Development Act of 2002, expressly provides that the BCDA is to own, hold, and/or administer the military reservations and other properties transferred to it. It is argued that BCDA is a GOCC, which has a personality separate and distinct from the government; hence, the government is not a real party-in-interest as it does not stand to be benefited or injured by the decision of the case. Is the BCDA a GOCC, with a separate juridical personality, and the real party-in-interest in this case?

Furthermore, even assuming that the Republic is the real party in interest, X argued that the complaint is dismissible due to the defects in Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping (VCAFS) because it is beyond the official functions of the BCDA, much less its President and CEO, to sign the VCAFS. Assuming that the BCDA was competent to act on behalf of the Republic, the signature of BCDA’s President and CEO on the VCAFS is not valid because of lack of evidence showing that he was particularly authorized by the Board of Directors of the BCDA to sign the same. The Secretary’s Certificate showing the authority of the President and CEO to sign the VCAF was belatedly filed. Should the complaint be dismissed due to the defects in the VCAF?

A: NO. The BCDA is a Government Instrumentality with Corporate Powers (GICP)/Government Corporate Entity (GCE), pursuant to the ruling in BCDA v. CIR where, using the criteria established in MIAA v. CA, the Court found that BCDA was neither a stock nor a non-stock corporation. Furthermore, the BCDA is a mere trustee of the government, similar to the ruling in MIAA. The transfer of the military reservations and other properties, such as the subject land, from the CSEZ to the BCDA was not meant to transfer the beneficial ownership of these assets from the Republic to the BCDA. Being the beneficial owner of these lands, the Republic is the real party-in-interest in this case. Hence, the BCDA, as trustee of the CAB lands, can execute the VCAFS. In Altres v. Empleo, the Court restated the jurisprudential pronouncement respecting non-compliance with the requirement on, or submission of defective, VCAFS, viz:

• A distinction must be made between noncompliance with the requirement on or submission of defective verification, and noncompliance with the requirement on or submission of defective certification against forum shopping.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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."
• 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.
• Finally, the certification against forum shopping must be executed by the partypleader, not by his counsel. If, however, for reasonable or justifiable reasons, the partypleader is unable to sign, he must execute a Special Power of Attorney designating his counsel of record to sign on his own behalf.

Here, the Secretary’s Certificate shows that the President and CEO was authority to verify, certify, and execute a certificate against non-forum shopping. Under ordinary circumstances, this cannot cure the defect of the VCAFS attached; however, given the special circumstances and jurisprudential significance of the case, the Court relaxed the rules with respect to the requirements of VCAFS in the interest of justice. (Republic v. Heirs of Bernabe, G.R. No. 237663, October 6, 2020)

Every pleading shall contain in a methodical and logical form, a plain, concise and direct statement of the ultimate facts including the evidence on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defense, as the case may be. (Rule 8, Sec. 1)