Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 14 views

    Jurisprudence On Verification

    Uploaded by

    Joyce M. Supsup

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Jurisprudence On Verification

    Uploaded by

    Joyce M. Supsup
    14 views2 pages

    Original Title

    Jurisprudence on Verification

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    14 views2 pages

    Jurisprudence On Verification

    Uploaded by

    Joyce M. Supsup

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    SC: Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping Signed by Authorized

    Counsel Only is Valid


    July 8, 2022

    Verifications and certifications of non-forum shopping signed only by the duly


    authorized counsel and not by the parties can be considered substantially compliant, as
    required by the Rules of Court.

    The requirement of attaching a validly signed verification and certification against non-
    forum shopping in intitatory pleadings is provided for by the Rules. Failure to comply
    may result in the dismissal of the case.

    In a 14-page Decision penned by Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the Supreme Court
    reiterated its previous ruling in Altres v. Empleo that verifications may be signed by
    anyone with ample knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations in the pleading,
    while certifications of non-forum shopping may be signed by the parties’ counsel in
    justifiable circumstances, provided a Special Power of Attorney is executed on the
    parties’ behalf.

    In 2018, a Petition for Review on Certiorari was filed with the Supreme Court by Ma.
    Luisa Annabelle A. Torres, Rodolfo A. Torres, Jr. and Richard A. Torres challenging a
    Court of Appeals’ ruling in a cancellation of land title case. The Republic of the
    Philippines sought its outright dismissal because the verification and certification of
    non- forum shopping was signed not by the petitioners, but by their counsel.

    Under Rule 7, Section 5 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, a verification serves to attest
    (1) to the truthfulness of the allegations in the pleading, (2) that the pleading was filed
    in good faith, and (3) that the allegations are supported by evidence. Without proper
    verification, the pleading shall be considered unsigned.

    Section 6 under the same Rule, on the other hand, provides that a certification against
    forum shopping must be included in all initiatory pleadings, stating that there are no
    other pending cases involving basically the same parties, issues, and causes of action.
    Failure to include the proper certification of non-forum shopping shall be cause for the
    dismissal of the case.

    However, in Altres v. Empleo, the Court held that a verification is deemed substantially
    complied with “when one 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.”

    The Court also noted in Altres v. Empleo that when the parties are unable to sign the
    certification of non-forum shopping for reasonable or justifiable reasons, the
    certification may be signed by the counsel designated by the parties through a Special
    Power of Attorney.
    In the present case, the Court found that the counsel who signed the verification and
    certification was designated as the attorney-in-fact by the petitioners in an executed
    Special Power of Attorney. The Court also noted that the circumstances justify the
    authorization considering that the petitioners were all living and working abroad.

    The Court cautioned against interpreting the rules on verification and forum shopping
    with “absolute literalness,” stressing that “[v]erification 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 in good faith xxx
    [while] the rules on forum shopping are designed to promote and facilitate the orderly
    administration of justice.” While strict compliance is required, such that verification and
    certification cannot altogether be dispensed with or completely disregarded, the
    interpretation of the rules should not “subvert its own ultimate and legitimate
    objectives,” concluded the Court.

    FULL TEXT of G.R. NO. 247490 dated July 5, 2022


    at:https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/28414

    You might also like