[G.R. No. 129718. August 17, 1998.
] another forum, other than by appeal or the special civil action
SANTO TOMAS UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, petitioner, vs.
CESAR ANTONIO Y. SURLA and EVANGELINE SURLA,
respondents.
SYNOPSIS
Respondent spouses sued petitioner hospital for damages
before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City based on their
claim that their son, Emmanuel Cesar Surla, while confined at
the said hospital for having been born prematurely, had
accidentally fallen from his incubator possibly causing serious
harm on the child. In its answer with compulsory counterclaim,
petitioner asserted that respondents still owed to it hospital
bills for their son's confinement thereat, and claimed moral and
exemplary damages, plus attorney's fees. Respondents sought
dismissal of petitioner's counterclaim on the ground that it was
not accompanied with a certificate of non-forum shopping
pursuant to Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 04-94.
Petitioner, however, contended that since its counterclaim was
compulsory in nature, the circular did not apply to it. The trial
court dismissed petitioner's counterclaim as the circular does
not distinguish whether the counterclaim should be permissive
or compulsory. Petitioner's petition for certiorari with the Court
of Appeals was dismissed. Hence, this appeal.
The Supreme Court ruled that the language of Circular No. 04-
94 distinctly suggests that it is primarily intended to cover an
initiatory pleading or an incipient application of a party
asserting a claim for relief. The circular has not been
contemplated to include a kind of claim which, by its very
nature as being auxiliary to the proceedings in the suit and as
deriving its substantive and jurisdictional support therefrom,
can only be appropriately pleaded in the answer and not remain
outstanding for independent resolution except by the court
where the main case pends. The appealed decision was
modified and the claim for moral, exemplary damages and
attorney's fees of petitioner was ordered reinstated.
SYLLABUS
1. REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE; JUDGMENT;
FINAL JUDGMENT OR ORDER, DISTINGUISHED FROM
INTERLOCUTORY ORDER. — The concept of a final judgment or
order. distinguished from an interlocutory issuance, is that the
former decisively puts to a close, or disposes of, a case or a
disputed issue leaving nothing else to be done by the court in
respect thereto. Once that judgment or order is rendered, the
adjudicative task of the court is likewise ended on the particular
matter involved. An order is interlocutory, upon the other hand,
if its effects would only be provisional in character and would
still leave substantial proceedings to be further had by the
issuing court in order to put the controversy to rest.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ERROR OF JUDGMENT, NOT
REVIEWABLE BY EXTRAORDINARY REMEDY OF CERTIORARI.
— As a rule, errors of judgment, as well as of procedure,
neither relating to the jurisdiction of the court nor involving
grave abuse of discretion, are not reviewable by the
extraordinary remedy of certiorari. As long as a court acts
within its jurisdiction and does not gravely abuse its discretion
in the exercise thereof, any supposed error committed by it will
amount to nothing more than an error of judgment reviewable
by a timely appeal and not assailable by a special civil action
of certiorari. This rule, however, is not a rigid and inflexible
technicality. This Court has not too infrequently given due
course to a petition for certiorari even when the proper remedy
would have been an appeal, where valid and compelling
considerations could warrant such a recourse. Certiorari has
been deemed to be justified, for instance, in order to prevent
irreparable damage and injury to a party where the trial judge
has capriciously and whimsically exercised his judgment, or
where there may be danger of clear failure of justice, or where
an ordinary appeal would simply be inadequate to relieve a
party from the injurious effects of the judgment complained of.
3. ID.; FORUM-SHOPPING; ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR
NO. 04-94; PURPOSE. — It bears stressing, once again, that
the real office of Administrative Circular No. 04-94, made
effective on 01 April 1994, is to curb the malpractice commonly
referred to also as forum-shopping. It is an act of a party
against whom an adverse judgment has been rendered in one
forum of seeking and possibly getting a favorable opinion in
of certiorari or the institution of two or more actions or
proceedings grounded on the same cause on the supposition
that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition.
The language of the circular distinctly suggests that it is
primarily intended to cover an initiatory pleading or an incipient
application of a party asserting a claim for relief.
4. ID.; ID.; ID.; APPLICATION IN CASE OF
COUNTERCLAIM. — It should not be too difficult, foregoing
rationale of the circular aptly taken, to sustain the view that
the circular in question has not, in fact, been contemplated to
include a kind of claim which, but its very nature as being
auxiliary to the proceedings in the suit and as deriving its
substantive and jurisdictional support therefrom, can only be
appropriately pleaded in the answer and not remain
outstanding for independent resolution except by the court
where the main case pends. Prescinding from the foregoing,
the proviso in the second paragraph of Section 5, Rule 8, of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, i.e., that the violation of the anti-
forum shopping rule "shall not be curable by mere amendment
. . . but shall be cause for the dismissal of the case without
prejudice," being predicated on the applicability of the need for
a certification against forum shopping, obviously does not
include a claim which cannot be independently set up.
Petitioner, nevertheless, is entitled to a mere partial relief. The
so-called "counterclaim" of petitioner really consists of
two segregative parts: (1) for unpaid hospital bills of
respondents' son, Emmanuel Surla, in the total amount of
P82,632.10; and (2) for damages, moral and exemplary, plus
attorney's fees by reason of the alleged malicious and
unfounded suit filed against it. It is the second, not the first,
claim that the Court here refers to as not being initiatory
in character and thereby not covered by the provisions
of Administrative Circular No. 04-94.
[G.R. No. 139396. August 15, 2000.]
EFREN O. LOQUIAS, ET. AL. VS. vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN
Facts:
Private respondents Dr. Dalogdog, et. al. filed with the OMB-Mindanao against
petitioners Loquias, et. al. for violation of Republic Act No. 3019 for (failure to
give the salary increases and benefits provided in Sec. 20, Magna Carta of
Public Health Workers (R.A. 7305) & Local Budget Circulars Nos. 54, 54-A, 56,
60 and 64 for the health personnel of the LGU of San Miguel, Zamboanga del
Sur). OMB-Mindabao found probable cause and the corresponding
information was filed with the Sandiganbayan. Petitioners moved for a
reinvestigation and deference of the arraignment and pre-trial claiming lack of
funds that is why the benefits were not given. Special Prosecution Officer
recommended for the dismissal but was disapproved by Ombudsman
Desierto.
Petitioners filed a MR alleging that the joint affidavits of waiver executed by
private complainants have made the case of the prosecution against the
accused "too weak which could not even create a probable cause." and further
allege that the order disapproving the dismissal of the case constitutes a denial
of their MR.
Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari (Rule 65) assailing the Resolution
charging them. Ombudsman thru the SolGen claims that the petition does not
comply with Section 5, Rule 7 as the Verification and the Certification on Non-
Forum Shopping were signed only by petitioner Antonio Din and not by all the
petitioners and there is no showing that petitioner Din was authorized by his
co-petitioners to represent them in this case. Petitioners countered that there
was substantial compliance with Section 5, Rule 7 notwithstanding the fact
that only one of the petitioners signed the verification and certification on
forum shopping.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioners failed to comply with Sec. 5, Rule 7?
Ruling:
Petitioners failed to comply with the rule.At the outset, it is noted that the
Verification and Certification was signed by Antonio Din, Jr., one of the
petitioners in the instant case. We agree with the Solicitor General that the
petition is defective. Section 5, Rule 7 expressly provides that it is the plaintiff
or principal party who shall certify under oath that he has not commenced any
action involving the same issues in any court, etc. Only petitioner Din, the Vice-
Mayor of San Miguel, Zamboanga del Sur, signed the certification. There is no
showing that he was authorized by his co-petitioners to represent the latter
and to sign the certification. It cannot likewise be presumed that petitioner
Din knew, to the best of his knowledge, whether his co-petitioners had the
same or similar actions or claims filed or pending. We find that substantial
compliance will not suffice in a matter involving strict observance by the rules.
The attestation contained in the certification on non-forum shopping requires
personal knowledge by the party who executed the same. Petitioners must
show reasonable cause for failure to personally sign the certification. Utter
disregard of the rules cannot justly be rationalized by harking on the policy of
liberal construction.
Petition dismissed.
Mediserv vs CA 2010
GR No. 161368 April 05 2010
By AK Fernandez
TOPIC: RULE 7 – Certification against Forum Shopping
FACTS:
On September 20, 1994, Mediserv, Inc. executed a real estate
mortgage in favor of China Banking Corporation as security for a
loan.
Mediserv defaulted on its obligation with Chinabank and the real
estate mortgage was foreclosed. Auction ensued, and Landheights
Development Corporation emerged as the highest bidder for
17.6M. In 1998 Landheights filed w (RTC) of Manila an
"Application for Possession of Real Estate Property Purchased at
an Auction Sale”  this was granted in 1999. On March 13, 2000,
Landheights, filed ejectment case against Mediserv MeTC granted
the petition for ejectment. RTC reversed. CA affirmed RTC. Why?
CA:
“It appearing that the written authority of Dickson Tan to sign
the verification and certification on non-forum shopping, as
well as the copies of the complaint and answer, are not
attached to the petition, the petition is DISMISSED.”
Landheights then seasonably filed a motion for
reconsideration on December 26, 2002 and subsequently
submitted a Secretary's Certificate affirming the Authority of Mr.
Tan to file petition for review.
Because of the foregoing, CA gave Landheights (10) days within
which to correct and rectify the deficiencies in the petition.
Landheights complied, CA now reinstated the petition.
ISSUE: WON the belated submission of Secretary’s Certificate and other
deficiencies like Cert of Non Forum Shopping warrants dismissal 
RULING:
Generally yes, but this case is an exception.
Under Rule 46, Section 3, paragraph 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, as amended, petitions for certiorari must be verified and
accompanied by a sworn certification of non-forum shopping.
What is certification of non-forum shopping?
a certification under oath by the plaintiff or principal party in
the complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for
relief or in a sworn certification annexed thereto and
simultaneously filed therewith,
(a) that he has not theretofore commenced any action or
filed any claim involving the same issues in any court,
tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his
knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending
therein;
(b) if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete
statement of the present status thereof;
(c) if he should thereafter learn that the same or similar
action or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall
report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the
court wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory
pleading has been filed.
The requirement that a petitioner or principal party should sign
the certificate of non-forum shopping applies even to
corporations, A corporation, exercises its powers through its board
of directors and/or its duly authorized officers and agents.
Dapat authorized sila as evidenced by Secretary’s Certificate.
Although the Court will generally dismiss the petition for lack of
verification and cert of non-forum shopping, the requirements must not
be interpreted too literally and thus defeat the objective of preventing
the undesirable practice of forum-shopping
We must make a distinction between non-compliance and substantial
compliance with the requirements as provided in the Rules of Court.
In the present case, Landheights rectified its failure to submit proof of
Mr. Dickson Tan's authority to sign the verification/certification on
non-forum shopping on its behalf when the required document was
subsequently submitted to the Court of Appeals.
It is settled that liberal construction of the rules may be invoked in
situations where there may be some excusable formal deficiency or error
in a pleading, provided that the same does not subvert the essence of
the proceeding and connotes at least a reasonable attempt at compliance
with the rules.
Espiritu vs Petron
G.R. No. 170891 November 24, 2009
By Abby Galang
TOPIC: Rule 7 – Certification against forum shopping
FACTS:
Respondent Petron sold and LPG with its trademark "Gasul."
Respondent Carmen J. Doloiras owned and operated Kristina Patricia
Enterprises (KPE), the exclusive distributor of Gasul LPGs in the whole of
Sorsogon. Jose Nelson Doloiras (Jose) served as KPE’s manager.
Bicol Gas Refilling Plant Corporation (Bicol Gas) was also in the
business of selling and distributing LPGs in Sorsogon but theirs carried the
trademark "Bicol Savers Gas." Petitioner Audie Llona managed Bicol Gas.
In the course of trade and competition, any given distributor of LPGs
at times acquired possession of LPG cylinder tanks belonging to other
distributors operating in the same area. They called these "captured cylinders."
According to Jose (KPE’s manager), Bicol Gas agreed with KPE for the
swapping of "captured cylinders" since one distributor could not refill captured
cylinders with its own brand of LPG. At one time, in the course of implementing
this arrangement, KPE’s Jose visited the Bicol Gas refilling plant. Jose
noticedthat Bicol Gas had a number of Gasul tanks in its yard. He offered to
make a swap for these but Llona declined. Later, Bicol Gas told Jose that it had
no more Gasul tanks left in its possession but Jose observed that Bicol Gas’
trucks which plied the streets of the province carried a load of Gasul tanks. Due
to this, KPE’s sales dropped significantly.
KPE filed a complaint for violations of R.A. 623 (illegally filling
up registered cylinder tanks) and Intellectual Property Code. The complaint
charged 4 Bicol Gas employees and the directors, officers, and stockholders of
Bicol Gas.
Office of the Provincial Prosecutor resolution: there was probable
cause only for violation of R.A. 623 the four Bicol Gas employees. The
charge against the stockholders and directors of the company was dismissed.
 Office of the Regional Prosecutor and Secretary of Justice
affirmed.
Due to this, Petron and KPE filed an action for certiorari with the
CA. Bicol Gas employees and stockholders opposed assailing the inadequacy
in its certificate of non-forum shopping, given that only Atty. Joel Angelo C.
Cruz signed it on behalf of Petron. CA ruled, however, that Atty. Cruz’s
certification constituted sufficient compliance.
ISSUE: WON the certificate of non-forum shopping signed only by Atty.
Cruz on behalf of Petron is sufficient
RULING: Yes.
While procedural requirements such as that of submittal of a
certificate of non-forum shopping cannot be totally disregarded, they may be
deemed substantially complied with under justifiable circumstances. One of
these circumstances is where the petitioners filed a collective action in which
they share a common interest in its subject matter or raise a common cause of
action. In such a case, the certification by one of the petitioners may be
deemed sufficient.
Here, KPE and Petron shared a common cause of action against the
petitioners for the violation of their proprietary rights with respect to the use
of Gasul tanks and trademark. Furthermore, Atty. Cruz said in his certification
that he was executing it "for and on behalf of the Corporation, and co-
petitioner Carmen J. Doloiras." Thus, the object of the requirement – to ensure
that a party takes no recourse to multiple forums – was substantially achieved.
Besides, the failure of KPE to sign the certificate of non-forum shopping does
not render the petition defective with respect to Petron which signed it through
Atty. Cruz.
o Praying to be declared as regular employees of SMC,
with claims for recovery of all benefits and privileges
enjoyed by SMC rank and file employees; and illegal
dismissal as additional cause of action following SMC's
closure of its Bacolod Shrimp Processing Plant which
resulted in the termination of their services.
That the three indeed represented their co-petitioners before the appellate court
is, as it correctly found, "subsequently proven to be true as shown by the
signatures of the majority of the petitioners appearing in their memorandum
filed before Us."
 Here, a reading of the joint affidavit signed by 12 of 97 complainants
(petitioners herein) would readily reveal that the affidavit was
offered as evidence not only for the signatories therein but for all of
the complainants. (These 97 individuals were previously identified
during the mandatory conference as the only complainants in the
proceedings before the labor arbiter). Moreover, the affidavit
touched on the common interest of all of the complainants as it
supported their claim of the existence of an employer-employee
relationship between them and respondent SMC.
At all events, this Court has allowed a liberal construction of the rule on the
accomplishment of a certificate of non-forum shopping in the following cases:
(1) where a rigid application will result in manifest failure or miscarriage of
justice; (2) where the interest of substantial justice will be served; (3) where the
resolution of the motion is addressed solely to the sound and judicious
discretion of the court; and (4) where the injustice to the adverse party is not
commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the
procedure prescribed.
PRINCIPLE:
GR: All plaintiffs must sign the certification against forum shopping
XPN: If they all raise one common cause of action (see above for instances
when rule on certification against forum shopping should be relaxed.)

SAN MIGUEL CORP VS. ABALLA

G.R. No. 149011; June 28, 2005
By Bim Ronquillo

TOPIC: RULE 7 – Certification against forum shopping

FACTS:
Petitioner San Miguel Coroporation entered into a 1-year contract with
Sunflower Multi-purpose Cooperative. Sunflower undertook to perform and/or
provide for the company’s Bacolod Shrimp Processing Plant the
Messengerial/Janitorial, Shrimp Harvesting/Receiving,
Sanitation/Washing/Cold Storage services. Pursuant to the contract, Sunflower
engaged private respondents (PROSPERO A. ABALLA, among 96 others),
commencing on Jan.1, 1993 and renewed monthly until Sept. 11, 1995. The
dismissed employees filed with the NLRC a complaint for declaration as regular
employees of SMC and for an illegal dismissal case, following SMC's closure
of its Bacolod Shrimp Processing Plant. After an unfavorable ruling from the
NLRC, the dismissed employees filed a petition for certiorari with the CA. Only
three out of the 97 named petitioners signed the verification and certification of
non-forum shopping. Thereby prompting SMC to file a Motion to Dismiss for
non-compliance with the Rules on Civil Procedure and failure to show grave
abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC.

CA – reversed LA and NLRC; MR – denied for lack of merit. Hence, this

Petition for Review on Certiorari. (relevant here is the 1 st issue that THE CA
GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING DUE COURSE AND GRANTING
RESPONDENTS' PATENTLY DEFECTIVE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI.)

ISSUE:
WON the case should be dismissed for failure to comply with the requirements
relating to certification against forum shopping, i.e. that it must be signed by
ALL plaintiffs?

RULING:
No. San Miguel Corporation and Sunflower Multi-Purpose Cooperative are
hereby ORDERED to jointly and severally pay each private respondent
differential pay from the time they became regular employees up to the date of
their termination.

While the general rule is that the certificate of non-forum shopping must be
signed by all the plaintiffs or petitioners in a case and the signature of only one
of them is insufficient, this Court has stressed that the rules on forum shopping,
which were designed to promote and facilitate the orderly administration of
justice, should not be interpreted with such absolute literalness as to subvert its
own ultimate and legitimate objective.

Given the collective of the petition filed before the appellate court by private
respondents, raising one common cause of action against SMC, the execution
made by the 3 petitioners (Winifredo Talite, Renelito Deon and Jose
Temporosa), in behalf of all the other respondents, constitutes substantial
compliance with the Rules.
 their claim of the existence of an employer-employee
relationship between them and SMC