EN BANC

[G.R. No. 180986. December 10, 2008.]

NORBERTO ALTRES, EVITA BULINGAN, EVANGELINE SASTINE,
FELIPE SASA, LILIBETH SILLAR, RAMONITO JAYSON, JELO
TUCALO, JUAN BUCA, JR., JUE CHRISTINE CALAMBA, ROMEO
PACQUINGAN, JR., CLEO JEAN ANGARA, LOVENA OYAO,
RODOLFO TRINIDAD, LEONILA SARA, SORINA BELDAD, MA.
LINDA NINAL, LILIA PONCE, JOSEFINA ONGCOY, ADELYN
BUCTUAN, ALMA ORBE, MYLENE SOLIVA, NAZARENE LLOREN,
ELIZABETH MANSERAS, DIAMOND MOHAMAD, MARYDELL
CADAVOS, ELENA DADIOS, ALVIN CASTRO, LILIBETH RAZO,
NORMA CEPRIA, PINIDO BELEY, JULIUS HAGANAS, ARTHUR
CABIGON, CERILA BALABA, LIEZEL SIMAN, JUSTINA YUMOL,
NERLITA CALI, JANETH BICOY, HENRY LACIDA, CESARIO
ADVINCULA,
JR.,
MERLYN
RAMOS,
VIRGIE
TABADA,
BERNARDITA CANGKE, LYNIE GUMALO, ISABEL ADANZA,
ERNESTO LOBATON, RENE ARIMAS, FE SALVACION ORBE,
JULIE QUIJANO, JUDITHO LANIT, GILBERTO ELIMIA, MANUEL
PADAYOGDOG,
HENRY
BESIN,
ROMULO
PASILANG,
BARTOLOME TAPOYAO, JR., RUWENA GORRES, MARIBETH
RONDEZ, FERDINAND CAORONG, TEODOMERO CORONEL,
ELIZABETH SAGPANG, and JUANITA ALVIOLA , petitioners, vs.
CAMILO G. EMPLEO, FRANKLIN MAATA, LIVEY VILLAREN,
RAIDES CAGA, FRANCO BADELLES, ERNESTO BALAT, GRACE
SAQUILABON, MARINA JUMALON and GEORGE DACUP,
respondents.
DECISION
CARPIO-MORALES, J :
p

Assailed via petition for review on certiorari are the Decision dated February 2, 2007
1 and Order dated October 22, 2007 2 of Branch 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
of Iligan City, which denied petitioners' petition for mandamus praying for a writ
commanding the city accountant of Iligan, Camilo G. Empleo (Empleo), or his
successor in oce, to issue a certication of availability of funds in connection with
their appointments, issued by then Iligan City Mayor Franklin M. Quijano (Mayor
Quijano), which were pending approval by the Civil Service Commission (CSC).
Sometime in July 2003, Mayor Quijano sent notices of numerous vacant career
positions in the city government to the CSC. The city government and the CSC
thereupon proceeded to publicly announce the existence of the vacant positions.
Petitioners and other applicants submitted their applications for the dierent

positions where they felt qualified.

Toward the end of his term or on May 27, June 1, and June 24, 2004, Mayor Quijano
issued appointments to petitioners.
In the meantime, the Sangguniang Panglungsod issued Resolution No. 04-242 3
addressed to the CSC Iligan City Field Oce requesting a suspension of action on
the processing of appointments to all vacant positions in the plantilla of the city
government as of March 19, 2004 until the enactment of a new budget.
The Sangguniang Panglungsod subsequently issued Resolution No. 04-266 4 which,
in view of its stated policy against "midnight appointments", directed the ocers of
the City Human Resource Management Oce to hold in abeyance the transmission
of all appointments signed or to be signed by the incumbent mayor in order to
ascertain whether these had been hurriedly prepared or carefully considered and
whether the matters of promotion and/or qualications had been properly
addressed. The same Resolution enjoined all ocers of the said Oce to put o the
transmission of all appointments to the CSC, therein making it clear that noncompliance therewith would be met with administrative action.
CDEaAI

Respondent city accountant Empleo did not thus issue a certication as to

availability of funds for the payment of salaries and wages of petitioners, as
required by Section 1 (e) (ii), Rule V of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 40, Series of
1998 reading:
xxx xxx xxx
e.

LGU Appointment. Appointment in local government units for

submission to the Commission shall be accompanied, in addition to
the common requirements, by the following:
xxx xxx xxx
ii.

Certication by the Municipal/City Provincial Accountant/Budget

Ocer that funds are available. (Emphasis and underscoring
supplied)
TAIESD

And the other respondents did not sign petitioners' position description forms.
The CSC Field Oce for Lanao del Norte and Iligan City disapproved the
appointments issued to petitioners invariably due to lack of certication of
availability of funds.
On appeal by Mayor Quijano, CSC Regional Oce No. XII in Cotabato City, by
Decision of July 30, 2004, 5 dismissed the appeal, it explaining that its function in
approving appointments is only ministerial, hence, if an appointment 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.

Petitioners thus led with the RTC of Iligan City the above-stated petition for
mandamus against respondent Empleo or his successor in oce for him to issue a
certication of availability of funds for the payment of the salaries and wages of
petitioners, and for his co-respondents or their successors in oce to sign the
position description forms.
As stated early on, Branch 3 of the Iligan RTC denied petitioners' petition for
mandamus. It held that, among other things, while it is the ministerial duty of the
city accountant to certify as to the availability of budgetary allotment to which
expenses and obligations may properly be charged under Section 474 (b) (4) of
Republic Act No. 7160, 6 otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991,
the city accountant cannot be compelled to issue a certication as to availability of
funds for the payment of salaries and wages of petitioners as this ministerial
function pertains to the city treasurer. In so holding, the trial court relied on Section
344 of the Local Government Code of 1991 the pertinent portion of which provides:
THDIaC

Sec. 344.
Certication and Approval of Vouchers . No money shall be
disbursed unless the local budget ocer certies to the existence of
appropriation that has been legally made for the purpose, the local
accountant has obligated said appropriation, and the local treasurer certies
to the availability of funds for the purpose. . . . (Underscoring supplied)

Petitioners led a motion for reconsideration 7 in which they maintained only their
prayer for a writ of mandamus for respondent Empleo or his successor in oce to
issue a certication of availability of funds for the payment of their salaries and
wages. The trial court denied the motion by Order of October 22, 2007, 8 hence, the
present petition.
aCTHEA

By Resolution of January 22, 2008, 9 this 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 led a Compliance Report dated February 18, 2008 10 to which they
attached 18 copies of (a) a verication and certication, (b) an adavit of service,
and (c) photocopies of counsel's Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) ocial
receipt for the year 2008 and his privilege tax receipt for the same year.
CcHDaA

Respondents duly led their Comment, 11 alleging technical aws in petitioners'

petition, to which Comment petitioners led their Reply 12 in compliance with the
Court's Resolution dated April 1, 2008. 13
The lone issue in the present petition is whether it is Section 474 (b) (4) or Section
344 of the Local Government Code of 1991 which applies to the requirement of
certication of availability of funds under Section 1 (e) (ii), Rule V of CSC
Memorandum Circular Number 40, Series of 1998. As earlier stated, the trial court
ruled that it is Section 344. Petitioners posit, however, that it is Section 474 (b) (4)
under which it is the ministerial duty of the city accountant to issue the
certication, and not Section 344 which pertains to the ministerial function of the

city treasurer to issue the therein stated certification.

A discussion first of the technical matters questioned by respondents is in order.

cIEHAC

Respondents assail as defective the verication and certication 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, citing Section 5, Rule 7
14 vis a vis Section 5, Rule 45 15 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and Docena v.
Lapesura 16 which held that the certication against forum shopping should be
signed by all the petitioners or plaintiffs in a case and that the signing by only one of
them is insucient as the attestation requires personal knowledge by the party
executing the same. 17
Petitioners, on the other hand, argue that they have a justiable 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. 18 Petitioners plead
substantial compliance, citing Huntington Steel Products, Inc., et al. v. NLRC 19
which held, among other things, that while the rule is mandatory in nature,
substantial compliance under justifiable circumstances is enough.
AHCaES

Petitioners' position is more in accord with recent decisions of this Court.

In Iglesia ni Cristo v. Ponferrada, 20 the Court held:
The substantial compliance rule has been applied by this Court in a number
of cases: Cavile v. Heirs of Cavile, where the Court sustained the validity of
the certication signed by only one of petitioners because he is a relative of
the other petitioners and co-owner of the properties in dispute; Heirs of
Agapito T. Olarte v. Oce of the President of the Philippines , where the
Court allowed a certication signed by only two petitioners because the case
involved a family home in which all the petitioners shared a common interest;
Gudoy v. Guadalquiver , where the Court considered as valid the certication
signed by only four of the nine petitioners because all petitioners led as coowners pro indiviso a complaint against respondents for quieting of title and
damages, as such, they all have joint interest in the undivided whole; and
DAR v. Alonzo-Legasto , where the Court sustained the certication signed
by only one of the spouses as they were sued jointly involving a property in
which they had a common interest. 21 (Italics in the original, underscoring
supplied)
TSDHCc

Very recently, in Tan, et al. v. Ballena, et al. , 22 the verication and certication
against forum shopping attached to the original petition for certiorari led with the
Court of Appeals was signed by only two out of over 100 petitioners and the same
was led one day beyond the period allowed by the Rules. The appellate court
initially resolved to dismiss the original petition precisely for these reasons, but on
the therein petitioners' motion for reconsideration, the appellate court ordered the
ling of an amended petition in order to include all the original complainants

numbering about 240. An amended petition was then led in compliance with the
said order, but only 180 of the 240 original complainants signed the verication and
certication against forum shopping. The Court of Appeals granted the motion for
reconsideration and resolved to reinstate the petition.
In sustaining the Court of Appeals in Tan, the Court held that it is a far better and
more prudent course of action to excuse a technical lapse and aord the parties a
review of the case to attain the ends of justice, rather than dispose of the case on
technicality and cause grave injustice to the parties, giving a false impression of
speedy disposal of cases while actually resulting in more delay, if not a miscarriage
of justice.
HDAaIc

The Court further discoursed in Tan:

Under justiable circumstances, we have already allowed the relaxation of
the requirements of verication and certication so that the ends of justice
may be better served. Verication 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 led in
good faith; while the purpose of the aforesaid certication is to prohibit and
penalize the evils of forum shopping.
In Torres v. Specialized Packaging Development Corporation, we ruled that
the verication requirement had been substantially complied with despite the
fact that only two (2) out of the twenty-ve (25) petitioners have signed the
petition for review and the verication. In that case, we held that the two
signatories were unquestionably real parties-in-interest, who undoubtedly
had sucient knowledge and belief to swear to the truth of the allegations in
the Petition.
In Ateneo de Naga University v. Manalo , we also ruled that there was
substantial compliance with the requirement of verication when only one of
the petitioners, the President of the University, signed for and on behalf of
the institution and its officers.
EAcTDH

Similarly, in Bases Conversion and Development Authority v. Uy, we allowed

the signature of only one of the principal parties in the case despite the
absence of a Board Resolution which conferred upon him the authority to
represent the petitioner BCDA.
In the present case, the circumstances squarely involve a verication that
was not signed by all the petitioners therein. Thus, we see no reason why we
should not uphold the ruling of the Court of Appeals in reinstating the
petition despite the said formal defect.
On the requirement of a certication of non-forum shopping, the well-settled
rule is that all the petitioners must sign the certication of non-forum
shopping. The reason for this is that the persons who have signed the
certication cannot be presumed to have the personal knowledge of the
other non-signing petitioners with respect to the ling or non-ling 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 certication. The
petitioners must be able to convince the court that the outright dismissal of
the petition would defeat the administration of justice.
SDHAcI

In the case at bar, counsel for the respondents disclosed that most of the
respondents who were the original complainants have since sought
employment in the neighboring towns of Bulacan, Pampanga and Angeles
City. Only the one hundred eighty (180) signatories were then available to
sign the amended Petition for Certiorari and the accompanying verication
and certification of non-forum shopping. 23

In the present case, the signing of the verication by only 11 out of the 59
petitioners already suciently 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 led in good faith; and that the signatories are
unquestionably real parties-in-interest who undoubtedly have sucient knowledge
and belief to swear to the truth of the allegations in the petition.
With respect to petitioners' certication against forum shopping, the failure of the
other petitioners to sign as they could no longer be contacted or are no longer
interested in pursuing the case need not merit the outright dismissal of the petition
without defeating the administration of justice. The non-signing petitioners are,
however, dropped as parties to the case.
HAICcD

In fact, even Docena 24 cited by respondents sustains petitioners' position. In that

case, the certication against forum shopping was signed by only one of the
petitioning spouses. The Court held that the certication against forum shopping
should be deemed to constitute substantial compliance with the Rules considering,
among other things, that the petitioners were husband and wife, and that the
subject property was their residence which was alleged in their veried petition to
be conjugal. 25
With respect to petitioners' non-presentation of any identication before the notary
public at the time they swore to their verication and certication attached to the
petition, suce it to state that this was cured by petitioners' compliance 26 with the
Court's Resolution of January 22, 2008 27 wherein they submitted a notarized
verication and certication bearing the details of their community tax certicates.
This, too, is substantial compliance. The Court need not belabor its discretion to
authorize subsequent compliance with the Rules.
For the guidance of the bench and bar, the Court restates in capsule form the
jurisprudential pronouncements already reected above respecting non-compliance
with the requirements on, or submission of defective, verication and certication
against forum shopping:
1)

A distinction must be made between non-compliance with the

requirement on or submission of defective verication, and noncompliance with the requirement on or submission of defective

certification against forum shopping.

2)

As to verication, 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. 28
aATHES

3)

Verication 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 verication, and
when matters alleged in the petition have been made in good
faith or are true and correct. 29

4)

As to certication against forum shopping, non-compliance

therewith or a defect therein, unlike in verication, 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". 30

5)

The certication against forum shopping must be signed by all

the plaintis or petitioners in a case; 31 otherwise, those who did
not sign will be dropped as parties to the case. Under reasonable
or justiable circumstances, however, as when all the plaintis or
petitioners share a common interest and invoke a common cause
of action or defense, the signature of only one of them in the
certication against forum shopping substantially complies with
the Rule. 32
TDcHCa

6)

Finally, the certication against forum shopping must be

executed by the party-pleader, not by his counsel. 33 If, however,
for reasonable or justiable reasons, the party-pleader is unable
to sign, he must execute a Special Power of Attorney 34
designating his counsel of record to sign on his behalf.

And now, on respondents' argument that petitioners raise questions of fact which
are not proper in a petition for review on certiorari as the same must raise only
questions of law. They entertain doubt on whether petitioners seek the payment of
their salaries, and assert that the question of whether the city accountant can be
compelled to issue a certication of availability of funds under the circumstances
herein obtaining is a factual issue. 35
The Court holds that indeed petitioners are raising a question of law.
The Court had repeatedly claried the distinction between a question of law and a
question of fact. A question of law exists when the doubt or controversy concerns
the correct application of law or jurisprudence to a certain set of facts; or when the

issue does not call for an examination of the probative value of the evidence
presented, the truth or falsehood of facts being admitted. 36 A question of fact, on
the other hand, exists when the doubt or dierence arises as to the truth or
falsehood of facts or when the query invites calibration of the whole evidence
considering mainly the credibility of the witnesses, the existence and relevance of
specic surrounding circumstances, as well as their relation to each other and to the
whole, and the probability of the situation. 37 When there is no dispute as to fact,
the question of whether the conclusion drawn therefrom is correct is a question of
law. 38
ICTcDA

In the case at bar, the issue posed for resolution does not call for the reevaluation of
the probative value of the evidence presented, but rather the determination of
which of the provisions of the Local Government Code of 1991 applies to the Civil
Service Memorandum Circular requiring a certicate of availability of funds relative
to the approval of petitioners' appointments.
AT ALL EVENTS, respondents contend that the case has become moot and academic
as the appointments of petitioners had already been disapproved by the CSC.
Petitioners maintain otherwise, arguing that the act of respondent Empleo in not
issuing the required certication of availability of funds unduly interfered with the
power of appointment of then Mayor Quijano; that the Sangguniang Panglungsod
Resolutions relied upon by respondent Empleo constituted legislative intervention
in the mayor's power to appoint; and that the prohibition against midnight
appointments applies only to presidential appointments as armed in De Rama v.
Court of Appeals. 39
aTICAc

The Court nds that, indeed, the case had been rendered moot and
academic by the final disapproval of petitioners' appointments by the CSC.
The mootness of the case notwithstanding, the Court resolved to rule on
its merits in order to settle the issue once and for all, given that the
contested action is one capable of repetition 40 or susceptible of
recurrence.
The pertinent portions of Sections 474 (b) (4) and 344 of the Local Government
Code of 1991 provide:
ICTHDE

Section 474.

Qualifications, Powers and Duties .

xxx xxx xxx

(b)
The accountant shall take charge of both the accounting and internal
audit services of the local government unit concerned and shall:
xxx xxx xxx
(4)
certify to the availability of budgetary allotment to which expenditures
and obligations may be properly charged. (Emphasis and underscoring
supplied)
DEICaA

xxx xxx xxx

Sec. 344.
Certication and Approval of Vouchers . No money shall be
disbursed unless the local budget ocer certies to the existence of
appropriation that has been legally made for the purpose, the local
accountant has obligated said appropriation, and the local treasurer
certies to the availability of funds for the purpose. . . . (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied)

Petitioners propound the following distinctions between Sections 474 (b) (4) and
344 of the Local Government Code of 1991:
CDaTAI

(1)
Section 474(b)(4) speaks of certication of availability of budgetary
allotment, while Section 344 speaks of certication of availability of funds for
disbursement;
(2)
Under Section 474(b)(4), before a certication is issued, there must
be an appropriation, while under Section 344, before a certication is issued,
two requisites must concur: (a) there must be an appropriation legally made
for the purpose, and (b) the local accountant has obligated said
appropriation;
(3)
Under Section 474(b)(4), there is no actual payment involved
because the certication is for the purpose of obligating a portion of the
appropriation; while under Section 344, the certication is for the purpose of
payment after the local accountant had obligated a portion of the
appropriation;
(4)
Under Section 474(b)(4), the certication is issued if there is an
appropriation, let us say, for the salaries of appointees; while under Section
344, the certication is issued if there is an appropriation and the same is
obligated, let us say, for the payment of salaries of employees. 41

Respondents do not squarely address the issue in their Comment.

Section 344 speaks of actual disbursements of money from the local treasury in
payment of due and demandable obligations of the local government unit. The
disbursements are to be made through the issuance, certication, and approval of
vouchers. The full text of Section 344 provides:
Sec. 344.
Certication and Approval of Vouchers. No money shall be
disbursed unless the local budget ocer certies to the existence of
appropriation that has been legally made for the purpose, the local
accountant has obligated said appropriation, and the local treasurer certies
to the availability of funds for the purpose. Vouchers and payrolls shall be
certied to and approved by the head of the department or oce who has
administrative control of the fund concerned, as to validity, propriety, and
legality of the claim involved. Except in cases of disbursements involving
regularly recurring administrative expenses such as payrolls for regular or
permanent employees, expenses for light, water, telephone and telegraph
services, remittances to government creditor agencies such as GSIS, SSS,

LDP, DBP, National Printing Oce, Procurement Service of the DBM and
others, approval of the disbursement voucher by the local chief executive
himself shall be required whenever local funds are disbursed.
In cases of special or trust funds, disbursements shall be approved by the
administrator of the fund.
In case of temporary absence or incapacity of the department head or chief
of office, the officer next-in-rank shall automatically perform his function and
he shall be fully responsible therefor. (Italics and underscoring supplied)

"Voucher," in its ordinary meaning, is a document which shows that services have
been performed or expenses incurred. 42 When used in connection with
disbursement of money, it implies the existence of an instrument that shows on
what account or by what authority a particular payment has been made, or that
services have been performed which entitle the party to whom it is issued to
payment. 43
AcDaEH

Section 344 of the Local Government Code of 1991 thus applies only when there is
already an obligation to pay on the part of the local government unit, precisely
because vouchers are issued only when services have been performed or expenses
incurred.
The requirement of certication of availability of funds from the city treasurer under
Section 344 of the Local Government Code of 1991 is for the purpose of facilitating
the approval of vouchers issued for the payment of services already rendered to, and
expenses incurred by, the local government unit.
The trial court thus erred in relying on Section 344 of the Local Government Code of
1991 in ruling that the ministerial function to issue a certication as to availability
of funds for the payment of the wages and salaries of petitioners pertains to the city
treasurer. For at the time material to the required issuance of the certication, the
appointments issued to petitioners were not yet approved by the CSC, hence, there
were yet no services performed to speak of. In other words, there was yet no due
and demandable obligation of the local government to petitioners.
TIHDAa

Section 474, subparagraph (b) (4) of the Local Government Code of 1991, on the
other hand, requires the city accountant to "certify to the availability of budgetary
allotment to which expenditures and obligations may be properly charged" . 44 By
necessary implication, it includes the duty to certify to the availability of funds for
the payment of salaries and wages of appointees to positions in the plantilla of the
local government unit, as required under Section 1 (e) (ii), Rule V of CSC
Memorandum Circular Number 40, Series of 1998, a requirement before the CSC
considers the approval of the appointments.
In ne, whenever a certication as to availability of funds is required for purposes
other than actual payment of an obligation which requires disbursement of money,
Section 474 (b) (4) of the Local Government Code of 1991 applies, and it is the
ministerial duty of the city accountant to issue the certification.
CSTDIE

WHEREFORE, 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
certication of availability of funds under Section 1 (e) (ii), Rule V of Civil Service
Commission Memorandum Circular Number 40, Series of 1998.
SO ORDERED.

Puno, C.J., Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Azcuna,

Tinga, Chico-Nazario, Velasco, Jr., Nachura and Reyes, JJ., concur.
Leonardo-de Castro, J., is on official leave.
Brion, J., is on leave.
Footnotes
1.

Rollo, pp. 17-24.

2.

Ibid. at 31-36.

3.

Id. at 37-38.

4.

Id. at 39-40.

5.

Id. at 41-45.

6.

Section 474 (b) (4), Republic Act No. 7160 provides:

"Section 474.

Qualifications, Powers and Duties .

xxx xxx xxx

(b)
The accountant shall take charge of both the accounting and internal audit
services of the local government unit concerned and shall:
xxx xxx xxx
(4)
certify to the availability of budgetary allotment to which expenditures
and obligations may be properly charged."
7.

Rollo, pp. 25-30.

8.

Supra note 2.

9.

Rollo, pp. 52-53.

10.

Ibid. at 54-55.

11.

Id. at 113-127.

12.

Id. at 146-157.

13.

Id. at 145.

14.

Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court provides:

EAcHCI

SEC. 5.
Certication against forum shopping. The plainti or principal party
shall certify under oath in the complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a
claim for relief, or in a sworn certication annexed thereto and simultaneously led
therewith: (a) that he has not theretofore commenced any action or led any claim
involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the
best of his knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if there
is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status
thereof; and (c) if he should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or
claim has been led or is pending, he shall report that fact within ve (5) days
therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has
been filed.
AHcCDI

Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be curable by mere
amendment of the complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the
dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon motion
and after hearing. The submission of a false certication or non-compliance with
any of the undertakings therein shall constitute indirect contempt of court, without
prejudice to the corresponding administrative and criminal actions. If the acts of
the party or his counsel clearly constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping,
the same shall be ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and shall
constitute direct contempt, as well as a cause for administrative sanctions.
15.

Section 5, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court provides:

SEC. 5.
Dismissal or denial of petition. The failure of the petitioner to comply
with any of the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the docket and
other lawful fees, 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 Supreme Court may on its own initiative deny the petition on the ground that
the appeal is without merit, or is prosecuted manifestly for delay, or that the
questions raised therein are too unsubstantial to require consideration.

16.

407 Phil. 1007 (2001).

17.

Ibid. at 1017.

18.

Rollo, p. 151.

19.

G.R. No. 158311, November 17, 2004, 442 SCRA 551.

20.

G.R. No. 168943, October 27, 2006, 505 SCRA 828.

21.

Ibid. at 841-842 (citations omitted).

22.

G.R. No. 168111, July 4, 2008.

23.

Ibid., citations omitted.

aESIHT

24.

Supra note 16.

25.

Ibid. at 1017-1021.

26.

Supra note 10.

27.

Supra note 9.

28.

Sari-Sari Group of Companies, Inc. v. Piglas-Kamao , G.R. No. 164624, August 11,
2008.

29.

Rombe Eximtrade (Phils.), Inc. v. Asiatrust Development Bank , G.R. No. 164479,
February 13, 2008, 545 SCRA 253.

30.

Chinese Young Men's Christian Association of the Philippine Islands v. Remington

Steel Corporation, G.R. No. 159422, March 28, 2008, 550 SCRA 180.

31.

Juaban v. Espina, G.R. No. 170049, March 14, 2008, 548 SCRA 588.

32.

Pacquing v. Coca-Cola Philippines, Inc ., G.R. No. 157966, January 31, 2008, 543
SCRA 344.

33.

Marcopper Mining Corporation v. Solidbank Corporation , G.R. No. 134049, June

17, 2004, 432 SCRA 360.
DaEcTC

34.
35.
36.

37.
38.

Vide Fuentebella v. Castro , G.R. No. 150865, June 30, 2006, 494 SCRA 183;
Eslaban, Jr. v. Vda. de Onorio, G.R. No. 146062, June 28, 2001, 360 SCRA 230.
Rollo, p. 121.
Mendoza v. Salinas , G.R. No. 152827, February 6, 2007, 514 SCRA 414, 419;
Vide also Philippine National Construction Corporation v. Court of Appeals , G.R. No.
159417, January 25, 2007, 512 SCRA 684.
Ibid.
National Power Corporation v. Purefoods Corporation, et al. , G.R. No. 160725,
September 12, 2008, citing Gomez v. Sta. Ines , G.R. No. 132537, October 14,
2005, 473 SCRA 25, 37.
EDCTIa

39.
40.

405 Phil. 531, 551 (2001).

I n David v. Arroyo , G.R. Nos. 171396, 171409, 171485, 171483, 171400,
171489 & 171424, May 3, 2006, 489 SCRA 160, seven petitions for certiorari and
prohibition were led assailing the constitutionality of the declaration of a state of
national emergency by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. While the declaration of
a state of national emergency was already lifted during the pendency of the suits,
this Court still resolved the merits of the petitions, considering that the issues
involved a grave violation of the Constitution and aected the public interest. The
Court also armed its duty to formulate guiding and controlling constitutional
precepts, doctrines or rules, and recognized that the contested actions were
capable of repetition.

In Public Interest Center, Inc. v. Elma, G.R. No. 138965, June 30, 2006, 494 SCRA
53, the petition sought to declare as null and void the concurrent appointments of
Magdangal B. Elma as Chairman of the Presidential Commission on Good
Government (PCGG) and as Chief Presidential Legal Counsel (CPLC) for being
contrary to Section 13, Article VII and Section 7, par. 2, Article IX-B of the 1987
Constitution. While Elma ceased to hold the two oces during the pendency of the
case, the Court still ruled on the merits thereof, considering that the question of
whether the PCGG Chairman could concurrently hold the position of CPLC was one
capable of repetition.
cdphil

In Manalo v. Calderon , G.R. No. 178920, October 15, 2007, 536 SCRA 290, a
petition for habeas corpus was led by the police ocers implicated in the burning
of an elementary school in Batangas at the height of the May 2007 elections. The
Court decided the case on the merits notwithstanding the recall by the Philippine
National Police of the restrictive custody orders against petitioners therein. Citing
David v. Arroyo , the Court held: "Every bad, unusual incident where police ocers
gure in generates public interest and people watch what will be done or not done
to them. Lack of disciplinary steps taken against them erodes public condence in
the police institution. As petitioners themselves assert, the restrictive custody of
policemen under investigation is an existing practice, hence, the issue is bound to
crop up every now and then. The matter is capable of repetition or susceptible of
recurrence. It better be resolved now for the education and guidance of all
concerned".
cDACST

41.

Rollo, p. 148.

42.

Atienza v. Villarosa, G.R. No. 161081, May 10, 2005, 458 SCRA 385, 403.

43.
44.

Ibid. at 404, citing First National Bank of Chicago v. City of Elgin, 136 III. App.
453.
Supra note 6.