Tolentino v. Rivera
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners-spouses Felixberto and Higinia Francisco obtained a P2,000,000.00 loan from respondent Flordeliza Rivera, secured by two parcels of land. Due to business reverses and family medical expenses, they lost track of their loan. In August 1995, they discovered their account had allegedly ballooned to P10 million, and their properties had been foreclosed by respondent Rivera through Atty. Roney Jone Gandeza, with a redemption period until October 3, 1995. Petitioners-spouses, with the assistance of petitioner Reynaldo C. Tolentino, sought to settle the debt, offering P5.9 million based on their computation with 5% monthly interest, but respondent insisted on P10 million. Procedural History: On September 28, 1995, petitioners-spouses filed a complaint for redemption, equity on accounting, and injunction. Despite the suit, respondent Rivera executed an affidavit of non-redemption and obtained new titles (TCT Nos. 63167 and 63168) on October 9, 1995. Petitioners-spouses continued possession. On October 10, 1995, they entered into an agreement with Tolentino, giving him 60% interest in the property for financing their suit. A temporary restraining order was issued on October 20, 1995, and a preliminary injunction on November 13, 1995. Later, a compromise agreement was drafted, proposing payment of P8,000,000.00 to respondent and P375,000.00 to her counsel. However, due to failed financing, it was not submitted. Respondent filed a motion to submit the case for decision and for a writ of possession. The trial court initially denied the writ of possession but later, after parties amended the compromise agreement, approved it on October 30, 1996. Subsequently, on November 14, 1996, the trial court reconsidered and directed the issuance of a writ of possession, which was issued on December 11, 1996. Petitioners-spouses opposed this as premature. On January 30, 1997, the trial court recalled the writ of possession and ordered the issuance of a writ of execution, suspended until August 31, 1997. Respondent's certiorari petition to the Court of Appeals (CA) was dismissed for late filing. Petitioner Tolentino moved to intervene, claiming attorneys lacked authority to sign the compromise agreement. On August 26, 1997, the trial court granted Tolentino's intervention and nullified its October 30, 1996 order approving the amended agreement. Respondent moved for reconsideration. On September 2, 1997, respondent filed a motion for execution. Judge Villanueva inhibited himself, and the case was re-raffled. The new judge, on July 20, 1998, denied respondent's motion for execution. However, on February 26, 1999, this order was set aside, reinstating the approval of the amended compromise agreement, and Tolentino's intervention was dismissed as moot. Respondent filed a motion for execution and writ of possession. On July 20, 1999, the trial court granted execution but denied the writ of possession. A writ of execution was issued. Petitioner Tolentino filed a certiorari petition with the CA (CA G.R. SP No. 54489) assailing the February 26, 1999 order. The CA held in abeyance Tolentino's injunction application. Respondent filed several motions for execution. The CA issued a TRO. Respondent's new counsel filed a motion for speedy resolution of CA-G.R. SP No. 54489. Respondent filed an omnibus motion for a writ of possession. The judge inhibited himself, and the case was re-raffled to RTC Branch 5. On May 9, 2001, the public respondent issued a break-open order and a writ of possession. Petitioners-spouses sought reconsideration, alleging new developments. On August 20, 2001, the public respondent issued an order granting execution of the writ of possession. The Petition: The present petition for certiorari was filed by Reynaldo C. Tolentino and Spouses Felixberto and Higinia Francisco. However, only petitioner Tolentino signed the certification of non-forum shopping, without any authority from the Francisco spouses.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition is dismissible due to the defect in the certification of non-forum shopping. Whether petitioner Tolentino had the authority to file the petition on behalf of the Spouses Francisco.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The assailed orders of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City in Civil Case No. 3256-R are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the defect in the certification of non-forum shopping: The Court held that the petition is fatally defective because the certification of non-forum shopping was signed only by petitioner Reynaldo C. Tolentino, who described himself as "one of the petitioners." There was no showing that he was authorized by his supposed co-petitioners, the Spouses Felixberto and Higinia Francisco, to sign the certification on their behalf. This constitutes a violation of Section 1, Rule 65 in relation to Section 3, Rule 46 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court emphasized that the attestation in the certification requires personal knowledge by the party executing it, and substantial compliance is insufficient in matters requiring strict observance of rules. The failure to show authority or a justifiable cause for the co-petitioners' failure to sign is a fatal omission. On petitioner Tolentino's authority to file on behalf of the Spouses Francisco: The Court found that petitioner Tolentino failed to demonstrate any unity of purpose or authority to represent the Francisco spouses in filing the petition. Their agreement dated October 10, 1995, where Tolentino was to receive 60% interest in exchange for financing their suit, did not grant him the authority to file this petition in their name. Furthermore, the Spouses Francisco entered into a compromise agreement with the respondent to which Tolentino was not a party. Tolentino's subsequent motion to intervene was filed over six months after the judgment on the compromise agreement. The Court also noted that Tolentino's separate special civil action before the Court of Appeals had a similarly defective certification of non-forum shopping signed only by him. The differing conduct of Tolentino and the Francisco spouses, with the latter willing to fulfill the compromise agreement while Tolentino contested its validity, further indicated a lack of shared interest and authority.
Main Doctrine
A petition filed by multiple petitioners is fatally defective if the certification of non-forum shopping is signed only by one petitioner without any showing of authority to represent the others or a justifiable cause for their failure to sign, as this constitutes a flagrant disregard of procedural rules.