Certification of Non-Forum Shopping

SEC. 5. Certification against forum shopping. – The plaintiff or principal

party shall certify under oath 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; and (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.

Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be curable by

mere amendment of the complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be
cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless otherwise
provided, upon motion and after hearing. The submission of a false
certification or non-compliance with any of the undertakings therein shall
constitute indirect contempt of court, without prejudice to the
corresponding administrative and criminal actions. If the acts of the party
or his counsel clearly constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping, the
same shall be ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and shall
constitute direct contempt, as well as a cause for administrative sanctions. x
x x. [Emphases supplied]
(Martos, et. al. vs New San Jose Builders, Inc., G.R. No. 192650, 24 October
2012)

Verification

The verification requirement is significant, as it is intended to secure an

assurance that the allegations 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. 10 Verification is deemed substantially
complied with when, as in this case, 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.11

The absence of a proper verification is cause to treat the pleading as

unsigned and dismissible.12

(Martos, et. al. vs New San Jose Builders, Inc., G.R. No. 192650, 24 October
2012)

Verification is not an empty ritual or a meaningless

formality. Its import must never be sacrificed in the
name of mere expedience or sheer caprice. For what
is at stake is the matter of verity attested by the
sanctity of an oath to secure an assurance that the
allegations in the pleading have been made in good
faith, or are true and correct and not merely
speculative. (Hun Hyung Park vs Eung Won Choi,
544 Phil 431)

Respondents' certification of non-forum shopping is likewise

defective. The certification of non-forum shopping must be
 signed by the litigant, not his or her counsel. The litigant may,
for justifiable reasons, execute a special power of attorney to
authorize his or her counsel to sign on his or her behalf. 62 In
this instance, the verification and certification against forum
shopping63 was contained in one ( 1) document and was signed
by respondents' counsel, Atty. Daclan. (Hubilla, et. al. vs HSY
Marketing Ltd., G.R. No. 207354, 10 January 2018)

Hubilla, et. al. vs HSY Marketing Ltd,

G.R. No. 207354
10 January 2018

The rules on compliance with the requirement of the verification and

certification of non-forum shopping were already sufficiently
outlined in Altres v. Empleo, (594 Phil 246) where this Court stated:

For the guidance of the bench and bar, the Court restates in capsule
form the jurisprudential pronouncements already reflected above
respecting non-compliance with the requirements on, or submission
of defective, verification and certification against forum shopping:

1) A distinction must be made between non-compliance with the

requirement on or submission of defective verification, and
noncompliance with the requirement on or submission of defective
certification against forum shopping.

2) As to verification, non-compliance therewith or a defect therein

does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective. The court
may order its submission or correction or act on the pleading if the
attending circumstances are such that strict compliance with the Rule
may be dispensed with in order that the ends of justice may be
served thereby.
3) Verification 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.

4) As to certification against forum shopping, non-compliance

therewith or a defect therein, unlike in verification, is generally not
curable by its subsequent submission or correction thereof, unless
there is a need to relax the Rule on the ground of "substantial
compliance" or presence of "special circumstances or compelling
reasons".

5) The certification against forum shopping must be signed by all the

plaintiffs or petitioners in a case; otherwise, those who did not sign
will be dropped as parties to the case. Under reasonable or justifiable
circumstances, however, as when all the plaintiffs or petitioners share
a common interest and invoke a common cause of action or defense,
the signature of only one of them in the certification against forum
shopping substantially complies with the Rule.

6) Finally, the certification against forum shopping must be executed

by the party-pleader, not by his counsel. If, however, for reasonable
or justifiable reasons, the party-pleader is unable to sign, he must
execute a Special Power of Attorney designating his counsel of record
to sign on his behalf. 58

With respect to their petition for certiorari with the CA, petitioners failed to

affix their individual signatures on top of their typewritten names in the
verification and certification of non-forum shopping attached to the
petition. On this basis and on the conclusion that the NLRC did not commit
grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioners’ appeal on technical
grounds, the CA denied due course to the petition and dismissed the same.
Note, however, that in both instances, petitioners were not represented by
a lawyer. They had no counsel on record and had been filing and signing
all pleadings only through their representative, petitioner Rayala. There
was no showing that their case was directly handled or at the very least,
that they were assisted by a counsel. Not being lawyers, petitioners’ lack of
thorough understanding of procedural rules as well as the importance of
its strict observance is understandable. As held in a case, 20 a non-lawyer
litigant cannot be expected to be well-versed on the rules of procedure as
even the most experienced lawyers get tangled in the web of procedure.
(Polsotin, Jr. vs De Guia Enterprises, Inc., G.R. No. 172624, 05 December
2011)

Job as property right

NLRC Rules of Procedure as amended

Section 12. Submission of Position Paper and Reply.

-- (a) Subject to Sections 9 and 10 of this Rule, the Labor Arbiter shall direct
the parties to submit simultaneously their verified position papers with
supporting documents and affidavits, if any, on a date set by him/her
within ten (10) calendar days from the date of termination of the
mandatory conciliation and mediation conference.

(b) No amendment of the complaint or petition shall be allowed after

the filing of position papers, unless with leave of the Labor Arbiter.

(c) The position papers of the parties shall cover only those claims
and causes of action stated in the complaint or amended complaint,
accompanied by all supporting documents, including the affidavits of
witnesses, which shall take the place of their direct testimony, excluding
those that may have been amicably settled.

(d) Within ten (10) days from receipt of the position paper of the
adverse party, a reply may be filed on a date agreed upon and during a
schedule set before the Labor Arbiter. The reply shall not allege and/or
prove facts and any cause or causes of action not referred to or included in
the original or amended complaint or petition or raised in the position
paper.

NOMINAL DAMAGES

The law and jurisprudence allow the award of nominal damages in favor of
an employee in a case where a valid cause for dismissal exists but the
employer fails to observe due process in dismissing the employee. (Libcap
Marketing Corp. vs Baquial, G.R. No. 192011, 30 June 2014)

LAWYER’S LANGUAGE
A lawyer’s language should be forceful but dignified, emphatic but
respectful as befitting an advocate and in keeping with the dignity of the
legal profession. The lawyer’s arguments whether written or oral should be
gracious to both court and opposing counsel and should be of such words
as may be properly addressed by one gentlemen to another. By calling
complainant, a "sly manipulator of truth" as well as a "vindictive congenital
prevaricator", hardly measures to the sobriety of speech demanded of a
lawyer. (Hueysuwan- Florido vs Florido, A.C. No. 5624, 20 January 2004)

The use of unnecessary language is proscribed if we are to promote high

esteem in the courts and trust in judicial administration. (Lacurom vs
Jacoba, A.C. No. 5921, 10 May 2006)

Respondent's assertion that the NLRC not being a court, its commissioners,
not being judges or justices and therefore not part of the judiciary; and that
consequently, the Code of Judicial Conduct does not apply to them, is
unavailing. In Lubiano v. Gordolla,12 the Court held that respondent became
unmindful of the fact that in addressing the NLRC, he nonetheless
remained a member of the Bar, an oath-bound servant of the law, whose
first duty is not to his client but to the administration of justice and whose
conduct ought to be and must be scrupulously observant of law and
ethics.13
Respondent’s argument that labor practitioners are entitled to some
latitude of righteous anger is unavailing. It does not deter the Court from
exercising its supervisory authority over lawyers who misbehave or fail to
live up to that standard expected of them as members of the Bar. (Ng vs
Atty. Alar, A.C. No. 7252, 22 November 2006)

Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

Rule 8.01 – A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language
which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.

Rule 11.03 – A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing

language or behavior before the Courts.