(31) G.R. No.

165769
Facts:
n November 1997, respondent Julieta Ilao acquired, under a Contract to Sell of a piece of land. The
contract stipulated that the balance of the purchase price was payable upon proof by the vendee that
the boundaries of the property had already been relocated and that the fence thereon had been
constructed. Edito Pagadora, had allegedly prevented the surveyor from completing the task and even
threatened respondents with bodily harm. Hence, on March 24, 1998, respondent filed a Complaint for
forcible entry against petitioner before the MeTC, Rodriguez, Rizal. In his Answer, he pointed out that
the complaint was infirm, lacking as it did an exact reference on when the alleged forcible entry took
place, and also because it did not state that respondent had been in physical possession of the disputed
property prior to him. Accordingly, he prayed for the dismissal of the case as the controversy did not fall
under the MeTC’s jurisdiction, the allegations in the complaint being insufficient to constitute forcible
entry. MeTC dismissed the complaint. On appeal, RTC remanded the case but later on reversed by the
RTC. Petitioner sought MR but denied. PEtitioner elevated the matter to CA but outrightly dismissed for
technicality. Hence, this petition.
Issue:
WON the pleading is erroneous
Held:
YES. On page 23 of his petition for review under the heading that reads "Explanation," it is stated that a
copy of the pleading has been "served on plaintiffs through counsel via registered mail and not
personally due to the unavailability of messenger and distance constraints," but the pleading so served
is erroneously described as a "Manifestation and Motion to Dismiss" instead of "Petition for Review."
Section 11 of Rule 13 requires service and filing of pleadings and other papers, whenever practicable, to
be done personally; and if made through other modes, the party concerned must provide a written
explanation as to why service or filing was done otherwise.

(32) G.R. No. 180986

Facts:
Sometime in July 2003, Mayor Quijano sent notices of numerous vacant career positions in the city
government to the CSC. Toward the end of his term or on May 27, June 1, and June 24, 2004, Mayor
Quijano issued appointments to petitioners. In the meantime, the Sangguniang Panglungsod issued
Resolution requesting a suspension of action on the processing of appointments to all vacant positions
until the enactment of a new budget adn another resolution holding transmission of all appointments.
Respondent city accountant Empleo did not thus issue a certification as to availability of funds for the
payment of salaries and wages of petitioners. CSC disapproved the appointments due to lack of
certification of availability of funds. Mayou Quijano aapealed to CSC but later dismissed . RTC denied
petitioners mandamus and denied its MR. Hence, this petition
issue:
WON the pleading is defective
Held:
NO. In the present case, the signing of the verification by only 11 out of the 59 petitioners already
sufficiently assures the Court that the allegations in the pleading are true and correct and not the
product of the imagination or a matter of speculation; that the pleading is filed in good faith; and that
the signatories are unquestionably real parties-in-interest who undoubtedly have sufficient knowledge
and belief to swear to the truth of the allegations in the petition. With respect to petitioners’
certification against forum shopping, the failure of the other petitioners to sign as they could no longer
be contacted or are no longer interested in pursuing the case need not merit the outright dismissal of
the petition without defeating the administration of justice. The non-signing petitioners are, however,
dropped as parties to the case.

(33) G.R. No. 176518

Facts:
Spouses Ilagan applied for and were granted loan by respondent bank over parcels of land. Upon default
of payment, an extrajudicial foreclosure was conducted and respondent bank being the highest bidder
and for which a Certificate of Sale was issued in its favor. During the period of redemption, the
respondent Bank filed an Ex-Parte Petition for Issuance of a Writ of Possession. Petitioner St. Mathew
filed a Petition for Injunction with TRO against the respondent Bank and the Provincial Sheriff of Tarlac.
Hence, this petition.
Issue:
WON there is forum shopping
Held:
NO. The lack of authority to sign the certificate of non-forum shopping attached to the Petition for
Issuance of Writ of Possession was an insignificant lapse. Hence, it is immaterial that the certification on
non-forum shopping in the MBTC’s petition was signed by its branch head. Such inconsequential
oversight did not render the said petition defective in form.

(34) G.R. No. 178989

Facts:
Petitioner Eagle Ridge Golf and Country Club alleges that Eagle Ridge Employees Union(EREU)
committed fraud, misrepresentation and false statement when it filed for its registration and that EREU
failed to comply with the membership requirement for the registration as a labor organization. Eagle
Ridge seeks to have EREU’s registration cancelled when the Union filed a petition for certification
election. DOLE Regional Director granted Eagle Ridge’s petition and delisted EREU from the roster of
legitimate labor organizations. EREU appealed to the BLR, which initially affirmed the order of the
Regional Director, but upon filing of the EREU of a motion for reconsideration it was reinstated in the
roster of legitimate labor organizations. Eagle Ridge filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied,
thus a petition for certiorari to the CA. The CA dismissed Eagle Ridge’s petition for being deficient. The
CA denied a motion for reconsideration.
Issue:
WON the certification is defective
Held:
YES. In the instant case, the sworn verification and certification of non-forum shopping in the petition
for certiorari of Eagle Ridge filed before the CA carried the signature of its counsel without the requisite
authority. It is, thus, clear that the counsel is not the proper person to sign the certification against
forum shopping. If, for any reason, the principal party cannot sign the petition, the one signing on his
behalf must have been duly authorized. The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing
requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition.
(35) G.R. No. 173648
Facts:
Canoy and Pigcaulan were both employed by SCII as security guards and were assigned to SCII’s different
clients. Subsequently, however, Canoy and Pigcaulan filed with the Labor Arbiter separate complaints7
for underpayment of salaries and non-payment of benefits.These complaints were later on consolidated
as they involved the same causes of action. LA ruled in favor of the petitioners. Respondents appealed
to NLRC dismissed the appeal, and denied its MR. Respondents filed Petition for certiorari in CA which
set asides the ruling of LA and NLRC and dismissed monetary claims of petitioners. Hence, this instant
petition
Issue:
WON the CA erred when it dismissed the complaint allegedly due to absence of legal and factual [bases]
despite attendance of substantial evidence in the records.
Held:
YES. There was no substantial evidence to support the grant of overtime pay.The handwritten itemized
computations are self-serving, unreliable and unsubstantial evidence to sustain the grant of salary
differentials, particularly overtime pay. Unsigned and unauthenticated as they are, there is no way of
verifying the truth of the handwritten entries stated therein.

(36) G.R. No. 172590

Facts:
This is a complaint for ejectment case that was dismissed by the MeTC. The case was appealed to the
RTC which also dismissed the same without prejudice. Anderson filed an MR but the same was denied
by the RTC. On June 20, 2005, Atty. Oliva was finally able to file the Petition for Review but the
certification against forum shopping attached thereto was signed by him on Anderson’s behalf without
any accompanying authority to do so. Hence, the CA dismissed the case as the certification of forum
shopping was signed not by the petitioner herself but by her counsel without authority to do so. A
motion for reconsideration was filed which was also denied by the CA.
Issue:
Whether or not the rules on certification against forum shopping may be relaxed in this case.
Held:
NO. In this light, the Court finds that the CA correctly dismissed Anderson’s Petition for Review onthe
ground that the certificate of non-forum shopping attached thereto was signed by Atty. Olivaon her
behalf
without any authority to do so. While the Court notes that Anderson tried to correct this error by later
submitting an SPA and by explaining her failure to execute one prior to the filing of the petition, this
does not automatically denote substantial compliance. It must be remembered that a defective
certification is generally not curable by its subsequent correction.

(37) G.R. No. 109645

Facts:
Issue:
Held:
(38) G.R. No. 93875
Facts:
Petitioner Mario V. Amarante has been the lessee of a residential house belonging to private respondent
without any contract of lease but rentals were paid monthly and covered by rent control law. Private
respondent asked petitioner to enter into a written contract of lease which petitioner declined to sign.
Respondent refuse to accept further payments of rent prompting petitioner to file a consignation of
rentals before MTC. Respondent moved for the dismissal but denied. Petitioner instituted a Petition for
Certiorari before RTC which was dismissed. It then elevated to CA whcih affirmed the dismissal of the
RTC. MR was denied, hence, this petition.
Issue:
WON the consignation is terminated
Held:
YES. Considering that private respondent agreed to accept the monthly rentals, the action for
consignation was in effect terminated. As correctly held by the appellate court, the order of 12 August
1977 was clearly a judgment based on an oral compromise, which is valid. Moreover, whether the trial
court correctly interpreted the manifestation of petitioner is no longer a triable issue; it is a question of
fact which is now final and binding upon this Court. Under the Rent Control Law, the prohibition against
the ejectment of a lessee by his lessor is not absolute. Private respondent could have opted to eject
petitioner from the leased premises much earlier. Yet, private respondent allowed petitioner to stay
even after expiration of the lease.

(39) G.R. No. 123332

Facts:
Metrobank filed with the MTC an ejectment suit agains CIAGLO which in turn to be a sub-lessee, for
failure to pay rentals and bills. Thereafter, the case and proceeedings were instituted by Gatmaytan, a
partner of CIAGLO, singly and jointly with his law firm. CIAGLO filed a motion to dismiss whcih were
denied and set the case for trial. Gatmaytan initiated the proceeding at bar, G.R. No. 123332, through a
petition for the review on certiorari.
Issue:
WON there is forum shopping
Held:
YES. The facts plainly demonstrate Atty. Gatmaytan's guilt of forum shipping for instituting 2 or more
actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause of action which would make favorable disposition
on his part. He repetitively availed several judicail remedies in different courts, simultaneously and
succesively, all substatntially founded on the same transaction and essential facts while the case is
pending. He did this to increase his chance offbtaining favorable decision in different courts.

(40) G.R. No. 159691

Facts:
Matilde, one of four declared heirs of Filemon, had validly redeemed the four properties pursuant to the
assailed deed of redemption, and was entitled to have the title over the four properties transferred to
her name. Subsequently, Pascual one of the heri filed against Matilde to annul the former’s waiver of
rights, and to restore her as a co-redemptioner of Matilde with respect to the four properties. After the
trial court denied their motion for reconsideration for its lack of merit, the heirs of Miguel elevated the
denial to the CA on certiorari and prohibition, but the CA dismissed their petition. Thence, the heirs of
Miguel came to the Court on certiorari, but the Court dismissed their petition for being filed out of time
and for lack of merit. In our June 13, 2013 decision in this case, we directed Atty. Mahinay to show cause
“why he should not be sanctioned for committing a clear violation of the rule prohibiting forum-
shopping by aiding his clients in asserting the same claims at least twice.
Issue:
Whether or not the petitioners’ counsel, Atty. Makilito B. Mahinay, committed forum shopping.
Held:
YES. The Court considers Atty. Mahinay’s explanations unsatisfactory. It should not be enough for us to
just express our alarm at petitioners’ disregard of the doctrine of res judicata. We do not justly conclude
this decision unless we perform one last unpleasant task, which is to demand from petitioners’ counsel,
Atty. Makilito B. Mahinay, an explanation of his role in this pernicious attempt to relitigate the already
settled issue regarding Matilde’s exclusive right in the four properties. In view of the foregoing, Atty.
Mahinay was guilty of forum shopping. Under Revised Circular No. 28-91, any willful and deliberate
forum shopping by any party and his counsel through the filing of multiple petitions or complaints to
ensure favorable action shall constitute direct contempt of court.

(41) G.R. No. 171247

(42) A.C. NO. 6691
(43) G.R. NO. 152923
(44) G.R. No. 154080
(45) G.R. No. 164213
(46) G.R. No. 175733
(47) G.R. No. 143338
(48) G.R. No. 143338
(49) G.R. No. 175514
(50) G.R. No. 166859
(51) G.R. NO. 152131
(52) G.R. No. 182398
(53)