The rule requiring certain pleadings to be verified is embodied in Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court. It reads:
SEC. 4. Verification. – Except when otherwise specifically required by
law or rule, pleadings need not be under oath, verified or accompanied by affidavit.
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 onauthentic records.
A pleading required to be verified which contains a verification based on “information and belief,” or upon “knowledge, information and belief,” or lacks a proper verification, shall be treated as an unsigned pleading.
Verification of pleading is not an empty ritual bereft of any legal importance. It is intended to secure an assurance that the allegations contained in the pleading are true and correct; are not speculative or merely imagined; and have been made in good faith.[81] A pleading may be verified by stating that the pleaders have read the allegations in their petition and that the same are true and correct based either on their personal knowledgeor authentic records, or based both on their personal knowledge and authentic records. While the rule gives the pleaders several ways of verifying their pleading, the use of the phrase personal knowledge or authentic records is not without any legal signification and the pleaders are not at liberty to choose any of these phrases fancifully. Hun Hyung Park v. Eung Won Choi[82] teaches us when to properly use authentic records in verifying a pleading:
“[A]uthentic” records as a basis for verification bear significance in petitions wherein the greater portions of the allegations are based on the records of the proceedings in the court of origin and/or the court a quo, and not solely on the personal knowledge of the petitioner. To illustrate, petitioner himself could not have affirmed, based on his personal knowledge, the truthfulness of the statement in his petition before the CA that at the pre-trial conference respondent admitted having received the letter of demand, because he (petitioner) was not present during the conference. Hence, petitioner needed to rely on the records to confirm its veracity.
In her CA petition, Sorensen questioned the September 1, 2006 and September 18, 2006 Orders of Judge Gako which respectively granted Mahinay’s Reiteratory Motion and denied her Motion for Reconsideration. In addition to said Orders and Motions, and to support the allegations in her petition, Sorensen also attached copies of the August 12, 2005 Decision of this Court in G.R. No. 153762 and other material portions of the records of Civil Case No. CEB-16335. Quite obviously, Sorensen had no participation in the preparation and execution of these documents although they constitute the main bulk of her evidence. Hence, it was necessary for Sorensen to state in the verification that the allegations in her petition are true and correct not only based on her personal knowledge but also based on the information she gathered from authentic records.[83] The CA is, therefore, correct in its observation that Sorensen’s verification is insufficient.
Nonetheless, the Rules[84] and jurisprudence on the matter have it that the court may allow such deficiency to be remedied. In Altres v. Empleo,[85] this Court pronounced for the guidance of the bench and the bar that “non-compliance x x x or a defect [in the verification] 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 needs of justice may be served thereby.”
Pitted against this test, we sustain the CA for not taking a liberal stance in resolving Sorensen’s petition for certiorari as the dismissal thereof did not impair or affect her substantive rights.
x x x."
