Five Star Bus Company, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

The certification against forum shopping must be executed by the party-litigant personally, and substantial compliance through counsel's signature is insufficient absent a reasonable justification for the failure. The Court also held that a trial court acts within its discretion in declaring a party's right to present evidence waived when the party's repeated postponements and counsel's tardiness constitute dilatory tactics that unduly delay the administration of justice.

On 9 November 1991, a Suzuki Supercarry Mini-Van driven by private respondent Samuel King Sagaral II collided with a passenger bus owned and operated by petitioner Five Star Bus Company and driven by co-petitioner Ignacio Torres along the MacArthur Highway in Valenzuela, Metro Manila.

• The Civil Action: Following a vehicular collision, private respondent Sagaral filed a civil action for damages against petitioners in the RTC of Valenzuela, docketed as Civil Case No. 3812-V-92. After amicable settlement failed, trial ensued, and Sagaral rested his case on 26 December 1996.
• Scheduling and Postponements: The RTC scheduled six hearing dates for petitioners to present their evidence: 25 April 1996, 9 May 1996, 2 July 1996, 16 July 1996, 8 August 1996, and 20 August 1996. Five of these trial dates were cancelled at the instance of petitioners. The 25 April hearing was reset to 9 May due to the presiding judge's forced leave. The 9 May hearing was cancelled because petitioner Torres was incarcerated and could not post bail. The 2 July hearing was moved to 16 July upon petitioners' motion. The 8 August hearing was reset to 20 August due to counsel's conflict. Petitioners further moved to reset the 20 August hearing to 2 September.
• Waiver of Right to Present Evidence: When the case was called for hearing on 16 July 1996, petitioners' counsel arrived twenty minutes late. Upon motion of respondent Sagaral, the trial court issued an order deeming petitioners' right to present evidence waived and submitting the case for decision. The RTC denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration, noting the case had been pending for over four years and the court had consistently accommodated petitioners' requests.
• Petition to the Court of Appeals: Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals assailing the trial court's orders. The CA summarily dismissed the petition because the certification against forum shopping was signed by counsel for the petitioners, not the petitioners themselves, in violation of Supreme Court Circular No. 28-91. The CA denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration.

• Petitioners argued that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing their petition based on non-compliance with Circular No. 28-91, contending that their counsel's signature on the certification constituted substantial compliance. They claimed counsel signed it due to oversight and haste in protecting their clients' interests.
• Petitioners contended that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in declaring their right to present evidence waived, arguing that the right to be heard is a constitutional guarantee. They blamed heavy traffic for their counsel's tardiness on 16 July 1996.
• Petitioners asserted that the delay in the proceedings was not entirely their fault, citing circumstances beyond their control such as the incarceration of petitioner Torres and the re-raffling of the case.

• Respondent Sagaral maintained that the trial court correctly declared petitioners' right to present evidence waived due to their counsel's tardiness and the repeated delays caused by petitioners' numerous motions for postponement.
• The Court of Appeals, acting on the procedural issue, upheld the summary dismissal of the petition based on the strict requirements of Circular No. 28-91, ruling that the certification must be signed by the party-litigant personally.

• Procedural Issues: Whether the Court of Appeals correctly summarily dismissed the petition for certiorari on the ground that the certification against forum shopping was signed by counsel instead of the petitioners themselves.
• Substantive Issues: Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in declaring petitioners' right to present evidence waived due to counsel's tardiness and repeated postponements.

• Procedural: The Court held that the CA correctly dismissed the petition. Supreme Court Circular No. 28-91 requires strict compliance. The certification against forum shopping must be signed by the party-litigant because it requires personal knowledge of whether similar actions have been filed. Substantial compliance through counsel's signature is insufficient where, as here, petitioners failed to provide a reasonable justification for their failure to personally sign; oversight and haste do not warrant exemption from the rule.
• Substantive: The Court held that the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The delay in the proceedings was largely attributable to petitioners, who caused the cancellation of five out of six hearing dates. Because the case had been pending for over four years and the trial court had repeatedly accommodated petitioners, declaring the right to present evidence waived was a proper exercise of discretion to prevent further dilatory tactics and ensure the orderly administration of justice.

• Certification Against Forum Shopping — Supreme Court Circular No. 28-91 requires that the certification against forum shopping be executed by the party-litigant personally, as it requires personal knowledge of whether similar actions have been commenced. Strict compliance is mandated; substantial compliance through counsel's signature is insufficient absent a reasonable justification for the party's failure to sign. Oversight and haste do not constitute reasonable cause.
• Waiver of Right to Present Evidence — A trial court may declare a party's right to present evidence waived when the party's repeated motions for postponement and failure to appear on time constitute dilatory tactics that unduly delay the proceedings. Courts are not required to tolerate endless delays that work havoc upon orderly judicial procedure.

• "The fact that the Circular requires that it be strictly complied with merely underscores its mandatory nature in that it cannot be dispensed with or its requirements altogether disregarded, but it does not thereby interdict substantial compliance with its provisions under justifiable circumstances."
• "Regrettably, we find that substantial compliance will not suffice in a matter involving strict observance as provided for in Circular No. 28-91. The attestation contained in the certification on non-forum shopping requires personal knowledge by the party who executed the same. To merit the Court's consideration, petitioners here must show reasonable cause for failure to personally sign the certification. The petitioners must convince the court that the outright dismissal of the petition would defeat the administration of justice. However, the petitioners did not give any explanation to warrant their exemption from the strict application of the rule utter disregard of the rules cannot justly be rationalized by harking on the policy of liberal construction."

• Gabionza v. Court of Appeals — Cited for the proposition that substantial compliance with Circular No. 28-91 may be allowed under justifiable circumstances; distinguished in this case because petitioners lacked reasonable cause for non-compliance.
• Loyola v. Court of Appeals — Cited alongside Gabionza regarding the principle of substantial compliance under justifiable circumstances.
• Kavinta v. Castillo, Jr. — Cited alongside Gabionza regarding the principle of substantial compliance.
• Ortiz v. Court of Appeals — Followed as controlling precedent; held that substantial compliance does not suffice in matters requiring strict observance of Circular No. 28-91, the certification requires personal knowledge by the party, and petitioners must show reasonable cause for failure to personally sign.

• Supreme Court Circular No. 28-91 — Requires the petitioner to certify under oath that they have not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same issues in any other tribunal or agency, and imposes summary dismissal for violations. Applied to dismiss the petition because counsel, rather than the party-litigant, signed the certification.

Mendoza, Quisumbing, and Buena, JJ.