Mendigorin v. Cabantog
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns an ejectment case initiated by petitioner Carmelita S. Mendigorin against respondent Maria Cabantog. Mendigorin claimed to be a co-owner of a parcel of land and alleged that she had permitted Cabantog to occupy a 100-square-meter portion of this land, on which Cabantog had built a house. Mendigorin asserted that Cabantog paid no rent and demanded a monthly compensation of P3,000.00, along with vacating the premises after repeated demands were ignored. Cabantog, in her defense, claimed ownership of the 100-square-meter portion, asserting it was part of a larger lot adjudicated to her and co-owners, and accused Mendigorin of using fraud in the land registration. 2. Procedural History: The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) initially dismissed Mendigorin's ejectment complaint for lack of action. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed the MTC's decision, ordering Cabantog to vacate the premises, pay monthly compensation, and reimburse attorney's fees. Subsequently, Cabantog filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA), which reversed the RTC's decision and reinstated the MTC's dismissal of the complaint. Mendigorin's motion for reconsideration of the CA's decision was denied. 3. The Petition: This case is before the Supreme Court on a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, filed by Mendigorin. She argues that the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the RTC's decision and in not dismissing Cabantog's petition for review due to a defective certification of non-forum shopping, which was not personally signed by Cabantog but by her counsel. Mendigorin contends that this failure constitutes a violation of Supreme Court Revised Circular No. 28-91 and the Rules of Court, which require personal knowledge for such certifications. The core of Mendigorin's argument is that the CA should have dismissed Cabantog's petition outright for this procedural defect, thereby allowing the RTC's decision to become final and executory.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the decision of the Regional Trial Court. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not dismissing the petition for review filed by respondent Cabantog due to a defective certificate of non-forum shopping. Whether substantial compliance with the requirement for a certificate of non-forum shopping is sufficient.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the assailed decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals, and reinstated the decision of the Regional Trial Court. The Court held that the CA erred in giving due course to Cabantog's petition due to a fatally defective certification of non-forum shopping.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court held that since there was no proper petition filed before the CA, the decision of the RTC became final and executory. On the issue of the defective certification of non-forum shopping: The Court held that the Court of Appeals erred in giving due course to the petition filed by respondent Cabantog. The certification of non-forum shopping must be signed by the petitioner or any of the principal parties, not solely by their legal counsel. This requirement is based on the principle that only the petitioner has actual knowledge of whether similar actions or proceedings have been initiated in other courts or tribunals. Respondent Cabantog failed to provide a reasonable cause for not personally signing the certification and did not show that the interest of justice would be defeated if her petition were dismissed. Therefore, the petition before the CA was fatally defective and should have been dismissed outright. The Court emphasized that substantial compliance is not sufficient in matters involving strict observance of rules, such as the certification against forum shopping, citing Valentin Ortiz and Camilla Milan Ortiz vs. CA. The Court reiterated that the attestation in the certification requires personal knowledge by the party who executed it, and failure to show reasonable cause for not personally signing, or failure to convince the court that dismissing the petition would defeat the administration of justice, warrants dismissal. The Court found that the CA's reliance on prior jurisprudence allowing substantial compliance was no longer authoritative in light of subsequent rulings emphasizing the personal nature of the certification requirement.
Main Doctrine
A petition with a defective certification of non-forum shopping, not personally signed by the petitioner, is fatally defective and should be outrightly dismissed, as substantial compliance is not sufficient in matters requiring strict observance of rules like the certification against forum shopping.