The main issue of this case is whether or not there is poper verification of the

complaint. Contrary to Uniwide’s claim, the records of the case show that the
petition’s verification page contains Trajano’s competent evidence of identity,
specifically, Passport No. XX041470. Trajano’s failure to furnish Uniwide a
copy of the petition containing his competent evidence of identity is a minor
error that this Court may and chooses to brush aside in the interest of
substantial justice. This Court has, in proper instances, relaxed the application
of the Rules of Procedure when the party has shown substantial compliance
with it. In these cases, The court have held that the rules of procedure should
not be applied in a very technical sense when it defeats the purpose for which
it had been enacted, i.e., to ensure the orderly, just and speedy dispensation of
cases JUAN TRAJANO a.k.a. JOHNNY TRAJANO vs. UNIWIDE SALES
WAREHOUSE CLUB G.R. No. 190253, June 11, 2014, J. Brion
To determine whether a party violated the rule against forum shopping, the
most important factor to ask is whether the elements of litis pendentia are
present, or whether a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in
another; otherwise stated, the test for determining forum shopping is whether
in the two (or more) cases pending, there is identity of parties, rights or causes
of action, and reliefs sought. In turn, prior judgment or res judicata bars a
subsequent case when the following requisites concur: (1) the former judgment
is final; (2) it is rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter
and the parties; (3) it is a judgment or an order on the merits; (4) there is —
between the first and the second actions — identity of parties, of subject
matter, and of causes of action. As to the third requisite, it has been settled
that the dismissal for failure to state a cause of action may very well be
considered a judgment on the merits and, thereby, operate as res judicata on a
subsequent case. ABOITIZ EQUITY VENTURES, INC., vs. VICTOR S.
CHIONGBIAN, BENJAMIN D. GOTHONG, and CARLOS A. GOTHONG LINES,
INC. (CAGLI) G.R. No.197530, July 9, 2014, J. Leonen
Sisters Lourdes and Cecilia filed a petition to recover possession of a land.
However, only Lourdes was the signatory in the verification and certification
against forum shopping. Norma questioned the propriety of the petition. The
Court then ruled 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. LOURDES C.
FERNANDEZ vs. NORMA VILLEGAS and any person acting in her behalf
including her family G.R. No. 200191, August 20, 2014, J. PerlasBernabe