Cases on Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping:

Juaban and Zosa v. Espina and Cebu Discovery Bay, G.R. No. 170049, 14 March 2008

DOCTRINE(S)

1.    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.
2.    Nevertheless, 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 their own ultimate and legitimate objective.
3.    When all the 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 rules.
4. Under justifiable circumstances, the Court has relaxed the rule requiring the submission of
such certification considering that although it is obligatory, it is not jurisdictional.

FACTS

Petitioners filed for Certiorari against the CA.

The origin of the petition: Included 3 decisions; (1) RTC Br 27[Lapulapu City Cebu](Bancale v
Paras), (2)SC AM[AdminMatters]. (3) RTC Br 54[lplp](Espina v Gato(Sheriff))

Case (1) – Heirs of Bancale: filed for recovery of property against Eva Paras(3 pt in this case.).
rd

[Juaban and Zosa were their counsel]. Recovery okay.

**H of Bancale – entered into an Agreement to Sell and Buy with Espina(Respon): Espina
paid 2M advance, and designated Cebu Disco Bay as vendee(purchaser).

Respondents Espina and H of Bancale, learned that Juaban and Zosa filed in Br 27 to adjust
their “Atty’s fees” to 9M – Bancale Mf Recon = denied. The RTC without waiting for the period
to Appeal declared it Final and Executory [ 1 day after notice of decision normally 15 days for
appeal ]

A writ of execution was made for 9M and the properties for sold in a public bidding in-which
Juaban and Zosa WON.

Dec. 1, 1998: A new judge resided at Br 27 – granted the recon, which reversed the decision.
[Public Auction Invalid]

Case (2) – the administrative case against Sheriff Gato [who executed the Writ of Execution
and Public Auction of the properties notwithstanding the reversal of the New Judge(Dec. 1) and
showed impartiality and favor to JUABAN and ZOSA.(minadali)] – suspended 3 months.

Case(3) – Espina filed for Injunction and damages against Gato and Petitioners to prevent the
Public Auction. Defense already sold. Espina Paid 10M for redemption. Which was Dismissed
on:

** Important part
Petitioners aver that: Only respondent Espina signed the Verification and Certification of Non-
Forum Shopping attached to the complaint in the third case. No signatory made by Cebu Disco
Bay[which had personal interest over the property, as it is the vendee.].

ISSUE

Whether Espina have cause of action, and his lone signature in the Verification and Certification
of Non-Forum Shopping sufficient? YES. YES.

RULING

SC – affirmed substantially CA ruling ordering:1 Permanent Injunction; preventing them

from claiming ownership of 2 Lots in Lapulapu City, Cebu. 2. Set Aside the dismissal of RTC Br
54[Lapulapu][case 3] – and ordered them to pay damages.

SEC. 2. Parties in interest.—A real party in interest is the party who stands to be benefited or
injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Unless otherwise
authorized by law or these Rules, every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the
real party in interest.
Espina’s personal capacity to sue finds basis in the Agreement to Sell and to Buy. It is readily
apparent in the Agreement that he has been designated as the "Second Party", in his personal
capacity, and not as agent or representative of a corporate entity. 

Hence, the said Agreement is the very source of the right, the violation of which constituted the
cause of action in respondents’ complaint for injunction before the court a quo. It was respondent
Espina who entered into the Agreement, and his rights as a party to the said contract were not
extinguished just because he designated his co-respondent CDPI as vendee.

Among respondent Espina’s rights as a party to the Agreement is his right to the full realization of
the purpose of the contract, which in this case, would be the transfer of the ownership of the subject
properties from the Heirs of Bancale either to him or to his designated vendee.

***Having been established as a real party in interest, respondent Espina has not only the
personality to file the complaint, but also the authority to sign the certification against forum
shopping as a plaintiff therein. 

------

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.
Nevertheless, 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 their own ultimate and legitimate objective.
Strict compliance with the provisions regarding the certificate of non-forum shopping merely
underscores its mandatory nature in that the certification cannot be altogether dispensed with or its
requirements completely disregarded. Under justifiable circumstances, the Court has relaxed the
rule requiring the submission of such certification considering that although it is obligatory, it is
not jurisdictional.

Thus, when all the 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 rules.