Chan v. Regional Trial Court
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: On June 20, 1994, Shielda Hamoy-Singalivo and her brother, Cyreano Hamoy, filed a Complaint for Damages against spouses Jimmy and Patri Chan and their employee, Virgilio Tagapan Egay. The plaintiffs alleged that on June 23, 1993, Cyreano Hamoy was driving Shielda's jeep when it was struck by a speeding Chan Transit bus driven by Egay. The collision, allegedly caused by Egay's negligent and reckless driving and the bus's defective brakes, resulted in severe injuries to Cyreano, requiring extensive medical treatment and surgery, and rendering the jeep a total wreck. The plaintiffs sought P350,000.00 for medication, P170,000.00 for the jeep's value, P10,000.00 for litigation costs, P20,000.00 for attorney's fees, P50,000.00 in moral damages, and P50,000.00 in exemplary damages, totaling P650,000.00. 2. Procedural History: The complaint was filed without a certificate of non-forum shopping. The defendants-spouses Chan filed a Motion to Dismiss, which the Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied on August 18, 1994, after the plaintiffs submitted an affidavit of non-forum shopping executed by their counsel, deeming it substantial compliance. The defendants did not seek reconsideration or file a certiorari petition. The defendant driver, Egay, filed an answer. The trial proceeded, and Cyreano Hamoy testified on March 22, 1999. Subsequently, the defendants-spouses Chan filed a second Motion to Dismiss on March 26, 1999, nearly five years after the first denial, again citing the lack of a certificate of non-forum shopping signed by the plaintiffs themselves. The RTC denied this second motion on June 28, 1999, citing laches and reiterating substantial compliance. The defendants' motion for reconsideration was denied. Aggrieved, they filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals (CA). 3. The Petition: The Court of Appeals, in its Decision dated May 12, 2000, denied the petition for certiorari, ruling that there was substantial compliance with Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 04-94, citing the proximity of the circular's effectivity to the complaint's filing as a special circumstance. The CA denied the motion for reconsideration. The defendants-spouses Chan, now petitioners, filed the instant petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, raising issues of whether a certification of non-forum shopping executed by counsel constitutes substantial compliance and whether the ruling in Loyola v. Court of Appeals should apply. They argued that the CA erred in dismissing their petition for certiorari, citing jurisprudence that a certification by counsel is defective and constitutes non-compliance.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in denying the second motion to dismiss. Whether the certification of non-forum shopping executed by counsel, not by the plaintiffs themselves, constitutes substantial compliance with Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 04-94. Whether the case at bar should be covered by the ruling in Loyola v. Court of Appeals and whether the petitioners pursued the appropriate remedy.
Ruling
The petition is denied due course and is dismissed. The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the second motion to dismiss and grave abuse of discretion: The Supreme Court held that the petitioners failed to prove that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion. The trial court acted within its sound discretion in denying the second motion to dismiss, prioritizing the resolution of the case on the merits. The Court emphasized that a petition for certiorari from an interlocutory order requires the petitioner to prove that appeal would not afford adequate and expeditious relief, a burden the petitioners failed to discharge. The denial of the first motion to dismiss, which was not appealed, had become final and binding, and the subsequent filing of a second motion on the same ground, after a considerable delay, was barred by laches. The Court noted that the petitioners had participated in the proceedings for almost five years after the first denial before filing the second motion. On substantial compliance with the certification against forum shopping: The Court agreed with the lower courts that there was substantial compliance with SC Administrative Circular No. 04-94. It acknowledged that at the time the complaint was filed, the circular was relatively new, and courts had previously accepted certifications signed by counsel as sufficient. The Court cited Cadalin v. POEA Administrator and Kavinta v. Castillo, Jr., which held that substantial compliance was sufficient and that plaintiffs' counsel could execute the certification. The Court also pointed out that the trial court's August 18, 1994 order denying the first motion to dismiss had become the law of the case, and the defendants were barred by laches from assailing it again. The Court reiterated that procedural rules are meant to facilitate justice, not to obstruct it, and that technicalities should not stand in the way of resolving the merits of a case. On the application of Loyola v. Court of Appeals and the nature of the remedy: The Court found that the appeal in due course was a speedy and adequate remedy, which the petitioners failed to pursue promptly. They participated in the trial proceedings for years after the denial of their first motion to dismiss before filing the second motion. The Court reiterated that while SC Administrative Circular No. 04-94 and Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure requiring a certification signed by the plaintiff are mandatory, subsequent compliance or substantial compliance has been allowed in certain circumstances. The Court cited cases where belated filing was considered substantial compliance due to special circumstances, such as the recency of the rule or the interests of substantial justice. In this case, the filing of the complaint was only two and a half months after the circular took effect, and the interests of substantial justice would be better served by resolving the damages case on its merits.
Main Doctrine
A second motion to dismiss based on the same ground previously denied and not appealed via certiorari is barred by laches. Furthermore, in cases involving the certification against forum shopping, substantial compliance may be considered, especially when the rule is new, the filing is close to the effectivity of the circular, or when the interests of substantial justice would be better subserved by resolving the case on the merits.