Where petitioners are all relatives with common interest, only one of them may sign the anti-forum shopping certification - G.R. No. 186720

G.R. No. 186720

"x x x.

 In any case, we reiterate that where the petitioners are immediate relatives, who share a common interest in the property subject of the action, the fact that only one of the petitioners executed the verification or certification of forum shopping will not deter the court from proceeding with the action.  In Heirs of Domingo Hernandez, Sr. v. Mingoa, Sr.,[13] we held:

          Even if only petitioner Domingo Hernandez, Jr. executed the Verification/Certification against forum-shopping, this will not deter us from proceeding with the judicial determination of the issues in this petition.  As we ratiocinated in Heirs of Olarte v. Office of the President:     

                The general rule is that the certificate of non-forum shopping must be signed by all the plaintiffs in a case and the signature of only one of them is insufficient. However, the Court has also stressed that the rules on forum shopping were designed to promote and facilitate the orderly administration of justice and thus should not be interpreted with such absolute literalness as to subvert its own ultimate and legitimate objective. The rule of substantial compliance may be availed of with respect to the contents of the certification.  This is because the requirement of strict compliance with the provisions regarding the certification of non-forum shopping merely underscores its mandatory nature in that the certification cannot be altogether dispensed with or its requirements completely disregarded.  Thus, under justifiable circumstances, the Court has relaxed the rule requiring the submission of such certification considering that although it is obligatory, it is not jurisdictional. 

            In HLC Construction and Development Corporation v. Emily Homes Subdivision Homeowners Association, it was held that the signature of only one of the petitioners in the certification against forum shopping substantially complied with [the] rules because all the petitioners share a common interest and invoke a common cause of action or defense. 

            The same leniency was applied by the Court inCavile v. Heirs of Cavile, because the lone petitioner who executed the certification of non-forum shopping was a relative and co-owner of the other petitioners with whom he shares a common interest. x x x

     x x x

     

                Here, all the petitioners are immediate relatives who share a common interest in the land sought to be reconveyed and a common cause of action raising the same arguments in support thereof.  There was sufficient basis, therefore, for Domingo Hernandez, Jr. to speak for and in behalf of his co-petitioners when he certified that they had not filed any action or claim in another court or tribunal involving the same issues. Thus, the Verification/Certification that Hernandez, Jr. executed constitutes substantial compliance under the Rules.[14] (citations omitted)

Furthermore, we have consistently held that verification of a pleading is a formal, not a jurisdictional, requirement intended to secure the assurance that the matters alleged in a pleading are true and correct.  Thus, the court may simply order the correction of unverified pleadings or act on them and waive strict compliance with the rules.  It 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.[15]  It was based on this principle that this Court had also allowed herein petitioner, via our Resolution[16] dated April 22, 2009, a chance to submit a verification that complied with Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, as amended, instead of us dismissing the petition outright. 

x x x."