William Go Que Construction and/or William Go Que vs. Court of Appeals and Danny Singson, Rodolfo Pasaqui, Lendo Lominiqui, and Jun Andales

The photocopies of private subdivision identification cards and a joint affidavit of co-parties do not constitute competent evidence of identity under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, and the CA gravely abused its discretion in treating them as substantial compliance with the requirements of verification and certification against forum shopping. Competent evidence of identity requires either at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the photograph and signature of the individual, or the oath or affirmation of one credible witness not privy to the instrument who is personally known to the notary public and personally knows the individual, or of two credible witnesses neither of whom is privy to the instrument.

Private respondents Danny Singson, Rodolfo Pasaqui, Lendo Lominiqui, and Jun Andales were workers who filed illegal dismissal complaints against petitioner William Go Que Construction and/or William Go Que before the National Labor Relations Commission. The dispute arose from petitioner's allegation that the workers stole unused steel bars from the construction site, which led to their separation from employment. The procedural requirements of verification and certification against forum shopping under the Rules of Court, in relation to the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, became the central legal framework governing the dispute's progress through the appellate courts.

Private respondents Danny Singson, Rodolfo Pasaqui, Lendo Lominiqui, and Jun Andales filed complaints for illegal dismissal against petitioner William Go Que Construction and/or William Go Que before the National Labor Relations Commission, National Capital Region-North Sector Arbitration Branch, claiming that they were hired as steelmen on various dates and were regular employees until their illegal dismissal on June 3, 2006. They also alleged that petitioner failed to pay their monetary benefits, including service incentive leave pay, holiday pay, and 13th month pay. Petitioner averred that private respondents were hired as project employees and were informed of the specific period or phase of construction wherein their services were needed. Sometime in May 2006, petitioner learned that some workers were getting excess and cutting unused steel bars and selling them to junk shops, prompting him to announce that he would bring the matter to the proper authorities. Thereafter, private respondents no longer reported for work and were identified by the other workers as the thieves. Petitioner filed a complaint for theft against private respondents and a certain Jimmy Dulman before the Office of the City Prosecutor, Quezon City, which found probable cause and filed the corresponding Information before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, docketed as Criminal Case No. Q-07-149245.

The Labor Arbiter found petitioner to have illegally dismissed private respondents, declaring them regular employees entitled to reinstatement and backwages, rejecting petitioner's claim that they were contractual or project employees because petitioner failed to present written contracts, continuously employed them for two to eight years, and failed to submit termination reports to the DOLE. The LA likewise rejected the abandonment claim for lack of written notice. On appeal, the NLRC reversed, holding that private respondents were validly dismissed as they stole from petitioner, but ordered petitioner to pay each private respondent P5,000.00 as nominal damages for failure to accord procedural due process. Private respondents moved for reconsideration, which the NLRC denied, prompting them to elevate the case to the CA via a petition for certiorari with a Motion to Litigate as Pauper.

The CA granted the motion but noted that the Affidavit of Service and the Verification/Certification of Non-Forum Shopping contained a defective jurat, directing private respondents to cure the defects within five days. Petitioner filed an Urgent Manifestation pointing out the variance and dissimilarities in the signatures of private respondents as appearing in the annexes to their petition. Private respondents submitted their Manifestation and Compliance admitting that Andales could not be located as he was purportedly on vacation in Samar, but attached a verification dated December 7, 2006 bearing their signatures including Andales's, photocopies of private subdivision IDs of Singson, Pasaqui, and Lominiqui, and a photocopy of the driver's license of the affiant in the Affidavit of Service. The CA required private respondents anew to submit a proper Verification/Certification of Non-Forum Shopping. On September 10, 2009, private respondents submitted a Manifestation and Compliance and Submission of Joint Affidavit wherein Singson, Pasaqui, and Lominiqui stated that they personally knew Andales who used to be their co-worker and one of the original complainants, that Andales was in the province and not in a position to submit his ID, and that despite his absence, he should be maintained as a petitioner.

In a Resolution dated November 12, 2009, the CA held that the photocopies of the IDs submitted by Singson, Pasaqui, and Lominiqui, as well as their Joint Affidavit attesting to the identity of Andales, served as competent evidence of private respondents' identities and cured the defect in the Affidavit of Service and Verification/Certification of Non-Forum Shopping. Petitioner moved for reconsideration, which the CA denied. On June 15, 2010, Singson and Pasaqui, assisted by their counsel Atty. Ricardo M. Perez, amicably settled with petitioner and executed a Satisfaction of Judgment/Release of Claim, and thereafter filed a Motion to Withdraw Petition before the CA. The adjudged amounts in favor of Lominiqui and Andales were deposited with the NLRC because of their inability to show up and receive the amounts. The CA partially granted the motion to withdraw and dismissed the petition insofar as Singson and Pasaqui are concerned. Subsequently, the CA suspended the proceedings in view of the pendency of the petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Petitioner argued that the CA acted with grave abuse of discretion in refusing to dismiss the petition for certiorari before it on the ground of non-compliance with the requirements of verification and certification against forum shopping.
• Defective Jurat: Petitioner pointed out the variance and dissimilarities in the signatures of private respondents as appearing in the annexes to their petition for certiorari, and questioned Andales's participation in the case as he was already missing when the complaint was filed, and his signature in the Verification attached to the Position Paper did not match those in the payroll documents.
• Mootness as to Singson and Pasaqui: Petitioner, through counsel, moved that the instant petition be dismissed without prejudice to the claims of Lominiqui and Andales, who were "on the run," in view of the amicable settlement with Singson and Pasaqui.

• Substantial Compliance: Private respondents submitted a Manifestation and Compliance and Submission of Joint Affidavit wherein Singson, Pasaqui, and Lominiqui stated that they personally knew Andales who used to be their co-worker and one of the original complainants in the illegal dismissal case, that Andales was in the province and not in a position to submit his ID, and that despite his absence, he should be maintained as a petitioner before the CA.
• Competent Evidence of Identity: Private respondents attached photocopies of private subdivision IDs of Singson, Pasaqui, and Lominiqui, and a photocopy of the driver's license of the affiant in the Affidavit of Service, which they claimed served as competent evidence of their identities.

• Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping: Whether the CA acted with grave abuse of discretion in refusing to dismiss the petition for certiorari before it on the ground of non-compliance with the requirements of verification and certification against forum shopping.
• Competent Evidence of Identity: Whether the photocopies of private subdivision IDs and the Joint Affidavit submitted by private respondents constituted competent evidence of their identities under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

• Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping: Yes. The CA gravely abused its discretion in refusing to dismiss the petition for certiorari, as the defective verification and certification against forum shopping were not cured by the insufficient submissions of private respondents.
• Competent Evidence of Identity: No. The photocopies of private subdivision IDs from La Vista Association, Inc., R.O. Barra Builders & Electrical Services, and St. Charbel Executive Village do not constitute competent evidence of identity under Section 12(a), Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, as they are not documents of identification issued by an official agency. The Joint Affidavit identifying Andales is not competent evidence under Section 12(b) because the affiants themselves are privy to the instrument.

• Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping: The Court found that the Verification/Certification against Forum Shopping attached to the petition for certiorari was not accompanied by a valid affidavit or properly certified under oath because the jurat was defective in that it did not indicate the pertinent details regarding the affiants' competent evidence of identities. Under Section 6, Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, a jurat requires that the individual appears in person before the notary public, is personally known to the notary or identified through competent evidence of identity, signs the instrument in the presence of the notary, and takes an oath or affirmation. The notarial certificate did not state whether private respondents presented competent evidence of their identities or that they were personally known to the notary public, thus running afoul of the requirements of verification and certification against forum shopping under Section 1, Rule 65, in relation to Section 3, Rule 46, of the Rules of Court.

• Competent Evidence of Identity: The Court held that the photocopies of the IDs from private subdivision associations do not constitute competent evidence of identity under Section 12(a), Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, as they are not identification documents issued by an official agency. The Joint Affidavit identifying Andales is not competent evidence under Section 12(b) because Singson, Pasaqui, and Lominiqui themselves are privy to the instrument, i.e., the Verification/Certification of Non-Forum Shopping, in which Andales's participation is sought to be proven. The Court noted that it cannot be presumed that an affiant is personally known to the notary public; the jurat must contain a statement to that effect.

• Substantial Compliance: Citing Fernandez vs. Villegas, the Court acknowledged that non-compliance with the verification requirement or a defect therein does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective, and that verification is deemed substantially complied with when one who has ample knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations signs the verification. However, in this case, there was no substantial compliance because it cannot be ascertained that any of the private respondents actually swore to the truth of the allegations in the petition given the lack of competent evidence of any of their identities. Neither was there substantial compliance with the certification against forum shopping requirement, as the CA did not mention any perceivable special circumstance or compelling reason justifying the rules' relaxation.

• Serious Allegations of Forgery: The Court emphasized that the CA failed to address the evident variance in the signatures of the remaining private respondents, Lominiqui and Andales, in their petition for certiorari and their previous pleadings. The authenticity of their signatures and their participation in the case were seriously put into question. The important purposes behind the verification and certification requirements cannot be simply brushed aside absent any sustainable explanation justifying their relaxation, especially in light of the serious allegations of forgery.

• Procedural Rules: The Court stressed that procedural rules are not to be disdained as mere technicalities that may be ignored at will to suit the convenience of a party. Resort to the liberal application of procedural rules remains the exception rather than the rule; it cannot be made without any valid reasons underpinning the said course of action. To merit liberality, the one seeking such treatment must show reasonable cause justifying non-compliance with the Rules and must establish that the outright dismissal of the petition would defeat the administration of substantial justice.

• Competent Evidence of Identity — Under Section 12, Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, competent evidence of identity refers to the identification of an individual based on: (a) at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the photograph and signature of the individual, such as but not limited to passport, driver's license, PRC ID, NBI clearance, police clearance, postal ID, voter's ID, Barangay certification, GSIS e-card, SSS card, Philhealth card, senior citizen card, OWWA ID, OFW ID, seaman's book, alien certificate of registration, government office ID, NCWDP certification, or DSWD certification; or (b) the oath or affirmation of one credible witness not privy to the instrument, document or transaction who is personally known to the notary public and who personally knows the individual, or of two credible witnesses neither of whom is privy to the instrument who each personally knows the individual and shows to the notary public documentary identification. The Court applied this doctrine to hold that photocopies of private subdivision IDs and a joint affidavit of co-parties privy to the instrument do not satisfy the requirement.

• Verification vs. Certification Against Forum Shopping — Non-compliance with the verification requirement 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. In contrast, non-compliance with the certification against forum shopping or a defect therein is generally not curable by subsequent submission or correction, unless there is a need to relax the Rule on the ground of substantial compliance or presence of special circumstances or compelling reasons.

• Liberal Application of Procedural Rules — Procedural rules are not to be disdained as mere technicalities that may be ignored at will to suit the convenience of a party. Resort to the liberal application of procedural rules remains the exception rather than the rule; it cannot be made without any valid reasons underpinning the said course of action. To merit liberality, the one seeking such treatment must show reasonable cause justifying non-compliance with the Rules and must establish that the outright dismissal of the petition would defeat the administration of substantial justice.

• "Evidently, not being documents of identification issued by an official agency, the photocopies of the IDs of private respondents Singson, Pasaqui, and Lominiqui from La Vista Association, Inc., R.O. Barra Builders & Electrical Services, and St. Charbel Executive Village, respectively, do not constitute competent evidence of their identities under Section 12 (a), Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice." — This passage articulates the Court's application of the competent evidence of identity requirement to the specific documents submitted by private respondents, forming the core of the ruling.

• "In the same vein, their Joint-Affidavit identifying Andales and assuring the CA that he was a party-litigant is not competent evidence of Andales's identity under Section 12 (b), Rule II of the same rules, considering that they (i.e., Singson, Pasaqui, and Lominiqui) themselves are privy to the instrument, i.e., the Verification/Certification of Non-Forum Shopping, in which Andales's participation is sought to be proven." — This passage establishes that co-parties who are privy to the instrument cannot serve as credible witnesses for each other's identification under the notarial rules.

• "Here, there was no substantial compliance with the verification requirement as it cannot be ascertained that any of the private respondents actually swore to the truth of the allegations in the petition for certiorari in CA-G.R. SP No. 109427 given the lack of competent evidence of any of their identities." — This passage states the Court's conclusion that the defective jurat prevented any determination that the verification requirement was substantially complied with.

• "Procedural rules must, at all times, be followed, save for instances when a litigant must be rescued from an injustice far graver than the degree of his carelessness in not complying with the prescribed procedure. The limited exception does not obtain in this case." — This passage articulates the Court's stance on the strict application of procedural rules and the limited exception for liberal construction.

• Fernandez vs. Villegas, G.R. No. 200191, August 20, 2014, 733 SCRA 548 — Controlling precedent cited for the rules on substantial compliance with verification and certification against forum shopping requirements, including the principle that non-compliance with verification does not necessarily render a pleading fatally defective, while non-compliance with certification against forum shopping is generally not curable absent special circumstances.

• Kilosbayan Foundation vs. Janolo, Jr., 640 Phil. 33 (2010) — Cited for the principle that it cannot be presumed that an affiant is personally known to the notary public; the jurat must contain a statement to that effect.

• Sps. Lim vs. CA, 702 Phil. 634 (2013) — Cited for the purposes of verification and certification against forum shopping: verification secures an assurance that the allegations in the petition have been made in good faith or are true and correct, while certification against forum shopping is based on the principle that a party-litigant should not be allowed to pursue simultaneous remedies in different fora.

• Suarez, Jr. vs. National Steel Corporation, 590 Phil. 352 (2008) — Cited for the settled rule that legitimate waivers resulting from voluntary settlements of laborers' claims should be treated and upheld as the law between the parties.

• Phil. Savings Bank vs. Senate Impeachment Court, 699 Phil. 34 (2012) — Cited for the principle that a case becomes moot and academic when there is no longer any justiciable controversy between the parties.

• Abadilla vs. Spouses Obrero, G.R. No. 210855, December 9, 2015 — Cited for the principle that procedural rules are not to be disdained as mere technicalities that may be ignored at will to suit the convenience of a party.

• Building Care Corp./Leopard Security & Investigation Agency vs. Macaraeg, 700 Phil. 749 (2012) — Cited for the requirement that to merit liberality in the application of procedural rules, the party must show reasonable cause justifying non-compliance and establish that outright dismissal would defeat the administration of substantial justice.

• Sps. Dycoco vs. CA, 715 Phil. 550 (2013) — Cited for the principle that procedural rules must be followed save for instances when a litigant must be rescued from an injustice far graver than the degree of carelessness in not complying with the prescribed procedure.

• Section 4, Rule 7, Rules of Civil Procedure — Provides that a pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant has read the pleading and that the allegations therein are true and correct of his personal knowledge or based on authentic records, and that a pleading required to be verified which lacks proper verification shall be treated as an unsigned pleading. The Court applied this provision to determine that the defective jurat rendered the verification insufficient.

• Section 5, Rule 7, Rules of Civil Procedure — Requires the plaintiff or principal party to certify under oath in the complaint or other initiatory pleading that no other action or claim involving the same issues has been commenced or is pending, and provides that failure to comply shall not be curable by mere amendment but shall be cause for dismissal without prejudice. The Court applied this provision to find that the certification against forum shopping was not substantially complied with.

• Section 1, Rule 65, Rules of Court — Requires a verified petition for certiorari alleging facts with certainty, accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment or order subject thereof and a sworn certification of non-forum shopping. The Court applied this provision to determine that the petition before the CA failed to comply with the verification requirement.

• Section 3, Rule 46, Rules of Court — Requires the petitioner to submit together with the petition a sworn certification that no other action involving the same issues has been commenced, and provides that failure to comply with any of the requirements shall be sufficient ground for dismissal of the petition. The Court applied this provision to find that the CA should have dismissed the petition.

• Section 6, Rule II, A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC (2004 Rules on Notarial Practice) — Defines a jurat as an act in which an individual on a single occasion appears in person before the notary public, is personally known to the notary or identified through competent evidence of identity, signs the instrument in the presence of the notary, and takes an oath or affirmation. The Court applied this provision to determine that the jurat in the Verification/Certification was defective.

• Section 12, Rule II, A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC (2004 Rules on Notarial Practice) — Defines competent evidence of identity as identification based on at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the photograph and signature of the individual, or the oath or affirmation of one credible witness not privy to the instrument who is personally known to the notary public and who personally knows the individual, or of two credible witnesses neither of whom is privy to the instrument. The Court applied this provision to hold that the photocopies of private subdivision IDs and the Joint Affidavit did not constitute competent evidence of identity.

Sereno, C.J. (Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, Bersamin, and Caguioa, JJ., concurred.