Vallacar Transit v Jocelyn Catubig (2011)

Vallacar transit is engaged in the business of transportation and the franchise owner of a
Ceres Bulilit bus. Cabanilla is employed as a regular bus driver of petitioner.
One day, respondents husband, Quintin Catubig, Jr. (Catubig), was on his way home riding
in tandem with Emperado. Catubig tried to overtake a slow moving ten-wheeler cargo truck
by crossing-over to the opposite lane, which was then being traversed by the Ceres Bulilit
bus driven by Cabanilla, headed for the opposite direction. The bus collided with Catubigs
motorcycle. Both Catubig and Emperado died.
Cabanilla was charged with reckless imprudence resulting in double homicide with the
MCTC, but this was dismissed since the MCTC found that there was no negligene on his
part.
Thereafter, Catubig filed before the RTC a Complaint for Damages against Vallacar Transit,
seeking actual, moral, and exemplary damages (P484,000.00) based on Article 2180 (vicarious
liab), in relation to Article 2176, of the Civil Code.
Vallacars answer: It was Catubig who was negligent. In addition, as a special and affirmative
defense, Vallacar asked for the dismissal of respondents complaint for not being verified
and/or for failure to state a cause of action, as there was no allegation that petitioner was
negligent in the selection or supervision of its employee driver.
RTC decision: dismissed the case, found that the proximate cause of the accident was
Catubigs negligence.
CA: modified. Both Catubig (he was recklessly overtaking) and Vallacar (Catubig was
speeding) were negligent.. So Court awarded 250k.
Vallacar filed a P for Review. Vallacar asserts that:
Catubigs complaint for damages should be dismissed for the latters failure to verify
the same. The certification against forum shopping attached to the complaint, signed
by respondent, is not a valid substitute for Catubigs verification that she has read
the pleading and that the allegations therein are true and correct of her personal
knowledge or based on authentic records. A pleading lacking proper verification is
treated as an unsigned pleading, which produces no legal effect.
Issue: WON the complaint against Vallcar should be dismissed for failure to satisfy the
verification requirement. Held: No. (But, the court still ruled in favor of Vallacar since it was
not guilty of negligence).
Ratio:
Procedural
(1) Procedural - At the outset, we find no procedural defect that would have warranted
the outright dismissal of respondents complaint.
(2) The court then discussed principles pertaining to verification:

a. A pleading lacking proper verification is to be treated as an unsigned

pleading which produces no legal effect.
b. However, it also just as clearly states that except when otherwise
specifically required by law or rule, pleadings need not be under oath,
verified or accompanied by affidavit.
c. Although parties would often submit a joint verification and certificate
against forum shopping, the two are different.
i. First difference: who can sign?
1. Cert of Forum shopping: The certificate of non-forum
shopping must be signed by the party, and not by
counsel. The certification of counsel renders the petition
defective.
2. Verification: On the other hand, the requirement on
verification of a pleading is a formal and not a
jurisdictional requisite. It is intended simply to secure an
assurance that what are alleged in the pleading are true and
correct and not the product of the imagination or a matter of
speculation, and that the pleading is filed in good faith. The
party need not sign the verification. A partys
representative, lawyer or any person who personally
knows the truth of the facts alleged in the pleading may
sign the verification.
ii. Second difference: pleadings involved?
1. Cert of NFS: In contrast, all complaints, petitions,
applications, and other initiatory pleadings must be
accompanied by a certificate against forum shopping (Rule 7,
Section 5).
2. Verification: In the case before us, we stress that as a general
rule, a pleading need not be verified, unless there is a law or
rule specifically requiring the same.1
1

The Court then enumerated the pleadings that require verification: (ang dami)
a. all pleadings filed in civil cases under the 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure;
b. petition for review from the Regional Trial Court to the Supreme Court raising only questions of
law under Rule 41, Section 2;
c. petition for review of the decision of the Regional Trial Court to the Court of Appeals under
Rule 42, Section 1;
d. petition for review from quasi-judicial bodies to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43, Section 5;
e. petition for review before the Supreme Court under Rule 45, Section 1;
f. petition for annulment of judgments or final orders and resolutions under Rule 47, Section 4;
g. complaint for injunction under Rule 58, Section 4;
h. application for preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order under Rule 58, Section 4;
i. application for appointment of a receiver under Rule 59, Section 1;
j. application for support pendente lite under Rule 61, Section 1;
k. petition for certiorari against the judgments, final orders or resolutions of constitutional
commissions under Rule 64, Section 2;
l. petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus under Rule 65, Sections 1 to 3;
m. petition for quo warranto under Rule 66, Section 1;
n. complaint for expropriation under Rule 67, Section 1;
o. petition for indirect contempt under Rule 71, Section 4, all from the 1997 Rules of Court;

iii. Third difference: effect of non-compliance?

1. Cert of NFS: renders pleading defective.
2. Verification: verification is a formal, not jurisdictional,
requirement, and mainly intended to secure an assurance that
matters which are alleged are done in good faith or are true
and correct and not of mere speculation. When circumstances
warrant, the court may simply order the correction of
unverified pleadings or act on it and waive strict compliance
with the rules in order that the ends of justice may thereby be
served.
(3) In the present case:
a. Cert of NFS: It is not disputed herein that respondents complaint for
damages was accompanied by such a certificate.
b. Verification: No such law or rule specifically requires that respondents
complaint for damages should have been verified hence, it is not required
to be verified!
Substantive
(1) Long discussion on Art. 2180. Basta the Court ruled that the liab of an employer
under art 2180 requires that the negligence of the employee be established first. But
since Cabanillas negligence in driving the bus was not established, then the case
against Vallacar transist will not prosper.
(2) Thus, procedurally Vallacars argument is wrong. But on the merits, Vallacar
prevails.

p.
q.
r.

all complaints or petitions involving intra-corporate controversies under the Interim Rules of
Procedure on Intra-Corporate Controversies;
complaint or petition for rehabilitation and suspension of payment under the Interim Rules on
Corporate Rehabilitation; and
petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages and annulment of voidable marriages
as well as petition for summary proceedings under the Family Code.