Joven vs. Tulio

A verification and certification against forum shopping signed by only one of several petitioners substantially complies with the rules when the petitioners share a common interest and invoke a common cause of action or defense, and the outright dismissal of a petition for failure to attach unspecified documents is unwarranted where the appellate court failed to conduct a test of relevancy and the material allegations were already contained in the attached judgments.

Spouses Raul L. Tulio and Cristina Panganiban Tulio (respondents) are the registered owners of a parcel of commercial land in San Fernando, Pampanga, covered by TCT No. 429707-12. On August 14, 1997, respondents executed a 15-year contract of lease over the property in favor of Emiliano D. Joven and Cicero V. Garcia (petitioners), running from November 1, 1999 to October 31, 2013. Petitioners constructed a two-storey commercial building on the leased premises under the name J-G Shopping Mall, purportedly at a cost of P22 Million. The parties' relationship deteriorated over unpaid rental obligations, culminating in respondents' repossession of the property and a protracted dispute over possession and reimbursement that produced flip-flopping rulings across three levels of the judiciary.

On August 14, 1997, respondents Spouses Raul L. Tulio and Cristina Panganiban Tulio, as lessors, executed a contract of lease over a parcel of commercial land in San Fernando, Pampanga — registered under TCT No. 429707-12 — in favor of petitioners Emiliano D. Joven and Cicero V. Garcia, as lessees, for a period of 15 years, commencing November 1, 1999 and ending October 31, 2013. Petitioners thereafter caused the construction of a two-storey commercial building on the leased premises under the name and style of J-G Shopping Mall, purportedly at a cost of P22 Million.

For the period between November 1, 1999 and June 30, 2000, petitioners were able to pay only P2,000,000.00 out of an outstanding rental obligation of P3,000,000.00, leaving a balance of P1,000,000.00. Petitioners had issued respondents two checks — dated February 29, 1999 for P1,000,000.00 and April 30, 2000 for P250,000.00 — both of which were dishonored. Petitioners contested the scope of the unpaid period, arguing that it ended on October 31, 2000, not June 30, 2000.

On June 3, 2000, at approximately 8:30 a.m., respondents — assisted by Atty. Reynaldo B. Robles and 12 security guards — served a Notice of Eviction upon the two security guards of J-G Shopping Mall. The notice was addressed to petitioners as well as their employees, agents, and assigns. Respondents barricaded the entrance to the mall's Administration Office and issued a notice to tenants and stallholders stating that they had reassumed possession, control, and management of J-G Shopping Mall with immediate effect. That evening, respondents ordered the security guards employed by petitioners to leave, which they did.

Aggrieved, petitioners filed a complaint for forcible entry against respondents before the MTCC Branch I, City of San Fernando, docketed as Civil Case No. 8220. The MTCC, on February 17, 2003, found no forcible entry, reasoning that the departure of petitioners' representative after service of the Notice of Eviction constituted a lawful turnover of possession, but ordered respondents to reimburse P2,250,000.00 in advance rentals and one-half the cost of improvements. Both parties appealed to the RTC, where the case underwent successive reversals: the RTC first affirmed the MTCC with modifications on May 30, 2005, then overturned itself on October 6, 2011 on petitioners' motion for reconsideration, declaring forcible entry and ordering reimbursement of P12 Million for improvements, and then partly reversed itself again on May 15, 2012 under a different magistrate, declaring respondents in lawful possession and eliminating the obligation to reimburse improvements. Petitioners then elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals via a Rule 42 petition, which the CA dismissed outright on July 24, 2012 on technical grounds — defective affidavit of service, defective verification and certification against forum shopping signed by only one petitioner with notarial defects, and failure to attach unspecified documents and pleadings from the courts a quo. The CA denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration on November 13, 2012, prompting the present Rule 45 petition.

• Manifest Injustice: Petitioners contended that the outright dismissal of their Rule 42 petition by the CA resulted in manifest injustice against them, depriving them of a review on the merits.
• Vagueness of CA's Document Requirement: Peters maintained that the CA was not clear as to the specific pleadings and documents they were supposed to submit, it appearing that petitioners had already submitted certified true copies of the issuances of the courts a quo.

• Propriety of Outright Dismissal: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing outright petitioners' Rule 42 petition on technical grounds — namely, the alleged defects in the verification and certification against forum shopping, the notarial deficiencies, and the failure to attach copies of documents and pleadings from the lower courts.

• Propriety of Outright Dismissal: Yes, the CA erred. The verification and certification against forum shopping substantially complied with procedural requirements, the notarial defects were non-fatal and subsequently cured, and the failure to attach unspecified documents did not warrant outright dismissal absent a test of relevancy by the CA.

• Propriety of Outright Dismissal: The Court applied the distinction between verification and certification against forum shopping established in Altres vs. Empleo. Verification is a formal, not jurisdictional, requirement; non-compliance does not necessarily render a pleading fatally defective, and a court may order correction or act on the pleading when strict compliance may be dispensed with in the interest of justice. As to the certification against forum shopping, while it must generally be signed by all petitioners, the signature of only one suffices under reasonable or justifiable circumstances — as when all petitioners share a common interest and invoke a common cause of action or defense. Here, both petitioners shared a common interest in the subject property, common claims and defenses, and a common cause of action raising the same arguments; thus, the signature of petitioner Joven alone substantially complied with the rule, and the signature of co-petitioner Garcia could be dispensed with. The notary public's failure to indicate his commission number, place of commission, and office address was not fatal, as verification is merely a formal requirement; moreover, petitioners cured the defect by submitting a copy of the notary's commission upon receiving the CA's resolution. Regarding the missing documents, the Court applied the standards from Air Philippines Corporation vs. Zamora: only relevant and pertinent pleadings need be attached, a document need not be appended if its contents are found in another attached document, and a petition lacking an essential pleading may still be given due course upon later submission or in the higher interest of justice. The CA failed to specify which documents it required, conducted no test of relevancy, and ignored that the material allegations were already summarized in the attached judgments of the MTCC and RTC, including direct quotations from the lease contract. The Court emphasized that cases should be determined on the merits rather than on technicality, and that excusing a technical lapse to afford a review on appeal better serves the ends of justice than disposing of a case on procedural imperfections.

• Substantial Compliance with Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping (Altres vs. Empleo) — The Court restated six guideposts: (1) a distinction must be made between non-compliance with verification requirements and non-compliance with certification against forum shopping requirements; (2) non-compliance with or defects in verification do not necessarily render a pleading fatally defective, and the court may order submission or correction or act on the pleading if strict compliance may be dispensed with to serve justice; (3) verification is deemed substantially complied with when one who has ample knowledge signs it and the allegations are made in good faith or are true and correct; (4) non-compliance with or defects in the certification against forum shopping are generally not curable by subsequent submission or correction, unless the rule is relaxed on grounds of substantial compliance or special circumstances or compelling reasons; (5) the certification must be signed by all petitioners, otherwise those who did not sign will be dropped as parties, but under reasonable or justifiable circumstances — as when all petitioners share a common interest and invoke a common cause of action or defense — the signature of only one substantially complies; (6) the certification must be executed by the party-pleader, not counsel, but if the party-pleader is unable to sign for reasonable or justifiable reasons, he must execute a Special Power of Attorney designating counsel to sign on his behalf. The Court applied guidepost (5) to hold that the signature of one petitioner sufficed because both petitioners shared a common interest, common claims and defenses, and a common cause of action.

• Standards for Attachment of Documents to Petitions (Air Philippines Corporation vs. Zamora) — Three standards govern whether the absence of a pleading or document warrants dismissal: (1) only relevant and pertinent pleadings must be attached — the test of relevancy is whether the document supports the material allegations and makes out a prima facie case of grave abuse of discretion; (2) a relevant document need not be appended if its contents are found in another document already attached; (3) a petition lacking an essential pleading may still be given due course or reinstated upon later submission of the required documents or if the higher interest of justice so requires. The Court found that the CA failed to apply any of these standards, having neither specified the required documents nor conducted a test of relevancy.

• Liberal Construction of Procedural Rules in the Interest of Substantial Justice — Technical rules of procedure are tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice, not ends in themselves. When strict application would result in irreparable damage or grave injustice, courts must relax the rules in the higher interest of substantial justice. It is a far better course to excuse a technical lapse and afford parties a review on the merits than to dispose of a case on technicality, which may result in more delay and a miscarriage of justice.

• "The Court has often stressed that rules of procedure are merely tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. They were conceived and promulgated to effectively aid the court in the dispensation of justice. Courts are not slaves to or robots of technical rules, shorn of judicial discretion." — This passage, quoted from Grand Placement and General Services Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, articulates the foundational principle that procedural rules must yield to substantial justice when their strict application would frustrate rather than promote it.

• "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." — This formulation from Altres vs. Empleo sets out the exception to the general rule that all petitioners must sign the certification against forum shopping, and was the controlling principle applied to uphold the sufficiency of one petitioner's signature.

• "The mere failure to attach copies of pleadings and other material portions of the record as would support the allegations should not cause the outright dismissal of a petition for review. The allegations of the petition must be examined to determine the sufficiency of the attachments appended thereto." — This passage from Galvez vs. Court of Appeals defines the duty of the appellate court to examine the petition's allegations before dismissing for insufficient attachments, a duty the CA failed to discharge.

• "It is a far better and more prudent course of action for the court to excuse a technical lapse and afford the parties a review of the case on appeal to attain the ends of justice rather than dispose of the case on technicality and cause a grave injustice to the parties, giving a false impression of speedy disposal of cases while actually resulting in more delay – which is now the case here – if not a miscarriage of justice." — This passage encapsulates the Court's rationale for reinstating the petition: the CA's technical dismissal produced the very delay and injustice that procedural rules are meant to prevent.

• Altres vs. Empleo, 594 Phil. 246 (2008) — Controlling precedent. The Court restated and applied its six-part framework for evaluating defective verifications and certifications against forum shopping, particularly the rule that one petitioner's signature suffices when co-petitioners share a common interest and cause of action.
• Air Philippines Corporation vs. Zamora, 529 Phil. 718 (2006) — Followed. The Court applied its three-part standard for determining whether the absence of pleadings or documents warrants dismissal of a petition before the CA.
• Grand Placement and General Services Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 516 Phil. 541 (2006) — Quoted for the principle that procedural rules are tools for facilitating justice and that courts may suspend or except cases from their operation when application would frustrate justice.
• Galvez vs. Court of Appeals, 708 Phil. 9 (2013) — Followed. The Court applied the rule that the CA must examine the petition's allegations to determine the sufficiency of attachments before dismissing outright.
• Innodata Knowledge Services, Inc. vs. Inting, 822 Phil. 314 (2017) — Cited for the principle that verification is a formal, not jurisdictional, requirement.
• Heirs of Juan Dinglasan vs. Ayala Corporation, G.R. No. 204378, August 5, 2019 — Cited for the proposition that co-petitioners sharing common interest, common claims and defenses, and a common cause of action satisfy the substantial compliance rule for certification against forum shopping.

• 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — The CA relied on this rule to find the affidavit of service and verification defective because the notary public failed to indicate his notarial commission number, the province or city where he was commissioned, and his office address. The Supreme Court held these omissions non-fatal to the verification requirement and noted the defect was cured by subsequent submission of the notary's commission.
• 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — The verification and certification against forum shopping requirements were evaluated under this framework, as supplemented by jurisprudential guideposts from Altres vs. Empleo.
• SC Circular No. 04-94 and Revised Circular 28-91 — Referenced in petitioners' verification/certification as the bases for the requirement; these circulars govern the certification against forum shopping requirement in initiatory pleadings.
• Rule 42, Rules of Court — The procedural vehicle by which petitioners sought review of the RTC's ruling before the Court of Appeals, and which the CA dismissed outright on technical grounds.
• Rule 45, Rules of Court — The procedural vehicle for the present petition before the Supreme Court, assailing the CA's resolutions.

Perlas-Bernabe (Chairperson), Hernando, Inting, and Rosario, JJ., concurred. Justice Rosario was designated additional Member per Special Order No. 2835 dated July 15, 2021.