Gudoy v. Guadalquiver
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners, who are registered owners of a parcel of land, filed a Complaint for Quieting of Title and Damages against respondents, alleging that respondents also possess a title to a portion of the same property. The complaint was filed with the RTC of Panabo City, docketed as Civil Case No. 99-78. Procedural History: Summons were served, and respondents filed their Answer. Petitioners filed their Answer to Counterclaim and a Motion to Set Case for Pre-Trial. The court initially set the case for pre-trial, but later dismissed the complaint due to petitioners' failure to appear, which was subsequently reconsidered and granted. The presiding judge of Branch 4 voluntarily inhibited himself, and the case was transferred to Branch 34. The new judge set the case for pre-trial again. However, respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss, alleging that only one petitioner signed the verification of the complaint and that the certification against forum shopping was defective because not all petitioners signed it. The Petition: The RTC dismissed the complaint, ruling that all plaintiffs must sign the certification against forum shopping. Petitioners moved for reconsideration and an urgent plea to do away with needless technicalities, which were denied. They then filed the instant petition for review on certiorari, solely on a question of law, challenging the dismissal of their complaint on the ground of alleged improper certification against forum shopping.
Issue(s)
Whether the complaint was properly dismissed on the ground of alleged improper certification against forum shopping. Whether substantial compliance with the requirement for the certification against forum shopping is sufficient when all petitioners are co-owners pro indiviso of the property subject of the complaint.
Ruling
The Court reversed and set aside the Order dated October 1, 2001, of the Regional Trial Court of Panabo City, Branch 34, in Civil Case No. 99-78, and remanded the case to the said court for proper and expeditious disposition.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of dismissal due to improper certification against forum shopping: The Court found the petition impressed with merit. While SC Circular No. 28-91, as amended by SC Administrative Circular No. 4-94, requires the certification against non-forum shopping to be signed by all plaintiffs, the Court clarified that this rule is not absolute and allows for substantial compliance under justifiable circumstances. The intent of the circular is to promote the orderly administration of justice, not to subvert its objective through overly literal adherence to technicalities. The Court emphasized that the rule of substantial compliance may be availed of, and while the certification must be strictly complied with in the sense that it cannot be altogether dispensed with, its provisions do not prevent substantial compliance under justifiable circumstances. The objective is to achieve substantial justice as expeditiously as possible. In this case, no real prejudice would result to the respondents by proceeding with the pre-trial, but a palpable denial of substantial justice to the petitioners might occur due to a literal adherence to the formal requirement. On the sufficiency of substantial compliance in cases of co-ownership: The Court distinguished the present case from Loquias v. Office of the Ombudsman, where the co-parties were sued in their individual capacities. In the instant case, the nine petitioners are registered owners of the property as co-owners pro indiviso, possessing a joint interest in the undivided whole. Therefore, the ruling in Dar v. Alonzo-Legasto was deemed instructive and applicable. In Dar, it was held that when petitioners have a common interest, the signing of the certification by one of them substantially complies with the rule, and the failure of other co-parties to sign should not be a ground for dismissal. The petitioners argued that the trial court was estopped from questioning the complaint's compliance with formal requirements because it had already taken several actions on the case, including serving summons and setting pre-trial hearings. While not explicitly ruled upon as a separate issue, the Court's reversal of the dismissal order implicitly acknowledges that the trial court's belated reliance on a technicality was inappropriate after having proceeded with the case for a considerable period.
Main Doctrine
In cases involving co-owners pro indiviso of a property, where the complaint asserts a common interest, substantial compliance with the requirement for the certification against forum shopping may be met even if only one co-owner signs it, provided no real prejudice results to the opposing party.