You are on page 1of 2


179127, December 24, 2008 This case stemmed from an administrative complaint against respondents for unfair competition and cancellation of trademark registration. In the present petition, respondents contend that the Verification/Certification which petitioner attached to the present petition is defective and should result in its dismissal. They point out that the Secretarys Certificate executed by Arnold M. Wensinger was not properly notarized, and thus, cannot properly authorize Atty. Barranda to sign the Verification/Certification on behalf of petitioner because the notary public failed to state that: (1) petitioners Corporate Secretary, Mr. Wensinger, was known to her; (2) he was the same person who acknowledged the instrument; and (3) he acknowledged the same to be his free act and deed, as required under Section 2 of Act No. 2103 and Landingin v. Republic of the Philippines. ISSUE: WON the Verification/Certification attached to the petition is defective and should result in its dismissal NO. Section 2 of Act No. 2103 and Landingin v. Republic of the Philippines are not applicable to the present case since the requirements enumerated therein refer to documents which require an acknowledgement, and not a mere jurat. A Secretarys Certificate, as that executed by petitioner in favor of the lawyers of the Angangco and Villaraza law office, only requires a jurat. Even assuming that the Secretarys Certificate was flawed, Atty. Barranda may still sign the Verification attached to the Petition. 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. The party itself need not sign the verification. A partys representative, lawyer or any other person who personally knows the truth of the facts alleged in the pleading may sign the verification. Atty.Barranda, as petitioners counsel, was in the position to verify the truth and correctness of the allegations of the present Petition. Hence, the Verification signed by him substantially complies with the formal requirements for such. Petition granted.

COLLANTES v. CA G.R. No. 169604, March 6, 2007

Petitioner requested for the assistance of the Career Executive Service Board (CESB) relative to the termination of his services as Undersecretary for Civilian Relations of the DND invoking his right to security of tenure as a Career Executive Service Officer (CESO). After two years, he instituted a Petition for Quo Warranto and Mandamus before the CA, alleging constructive dismissal. Later, he received a letter from the CESB stating that his request has been referred to the CSC for appropriate action. Apparently, the CSC treated the letter-request as a complaint or petition over which it could exercise its adjudicative powers, as it issued its Resolution declaring petitioner to have been illegally removed and should therefore be given a position appropriate or sufficient for his eligibility. Meanwhile, the CA dismissed the petition filed by petitioner, holding that petitioner effectively resigned from his position. Petitioner moved for the execution of the CSC Resolution. However, the Legal Affairs Division of the DND moved for reconsideration, urging the CSC to revisit its resolution in conflict with the CA decision, which has already attained finality. The CSC later reversed its earlier resolution. Petitioner thus filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, which was dismissed. Hence, the present petition. ISSUE: WON petitioner violated his certification against forum shopping YES. From the time petitioner received the letter of CESB, informing him that his request has been referred to the CSC, he knew that two government agencies the CSC and the Court of Appeals were simultaneously in the process of reaching their respective decisions on whether petitioner was entitled to reinstatement or to a position appropriate to his eligibility. Nonetheless, he subsequently proceeded to act like a true forum shopper he abandoned the forum where he could not get a favorable judgment, and moved to execute the Resolution of the forum where he succeeded. This ace is, in fact, a violation of his certification against forum shopping with the Court of Appeals, a ground for dismissal of actions distinct from forum shopping itself. As petitioner knew from the receipt of the CESB letter that another claim was pending in a quasi-judicial agency concerning these issues, he was bound by his certification with the Court of Appeals to report such fact within five days from his knowledge thereof, which he did not do. Petition denied.