Abaigar v. Abaigar
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns a parcel of land. The petitioner, Panfilo A. Abaigar, filed a complaint for Forcible Entry against his brother, the respondent Jesus A. Abaigar. The petitioner alleged that the respondent, by letters dated August 25, 1997, demanded his tenants vacate the land, and when they did not, the respondent forcibly entered the land in December 1999 and prevented cultivation. Upon the petitioner's return from the United States in April 2000, he hired a laborer to cultivate the land, but the respondent again forcibly ousted the laborer on June 29, 2000, using force, threat, and intimidation. Procedural History: The Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) initially ruled in favor of the petitioner in a Decision dated March 19, 2004. However, on appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed this decision. The RTC noted a prior executory decision from 1999 in a separate case (Civil Case No. CC-92-0045) adjudging the respondent as the owner of the land in question. The RTC also found that the petitioner was not in prior physical possession of the premises when he was allegedly deprived of it by the respondent. Consequently, the RTC dismissed the petitioner's complaint and declared the respondent the owner and actual possessor of one-half of the property, ordering the petitioner to pay damages and litigation expenses. The Petition: The petitioner filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals, which was dismissed by Resolutions dated November 30, 2004, and February 4, 2005. The dismissal was based on the petitioner's failure to personally sign the certification against forum shopping, as it was signed by his counsel. The petitioner explained that he was residing in the United States at the time of filing, making personal execution of the certification within the reglementary period physically impossible. He argued that this constituted a justifiable reason to relax the Rule in the interest of substantial justice. The Court of Appeals denied his motion for reconsideration. The petitioner then filed the present petition with the Supreme Court, seeking to relax the Rule on certification against forum shopping due to the prevailing circumstances and the opportunity for appellate review.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for review due to a certification against forum shopping signed by counsel instead of the petitioner. Whether the rule on personal signature for the certification against forum shopping should be relaxed in favor of substantial justice, considering the circumstances and potential meritorious nature of the case.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing the petition for review. The circumstances presented do not warrant a relaxation of the rule on certification against forum shopping in favor of substantial justice.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the certification against forum shopping: The Court reiterated that Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure requires the plaintiff or principal party to certify under oath against forum shopping. Similarly, Section 2, Rule 42 mandates that the petitioner submit a certification under oath. The Court emphasized that a certification signed by counsel, not the principal party, is a defective certification and constitutes non-compliance, which is a valid cause for dismissal. This is because the petitioner is in the best position to know whether other actions involving the same issues have been filed. The appellate court was, therefore, strictly speaking, correct in dismissing the petition. On the relaxation of the rule in favor of substantial justice: While acknowledging that the rule has been relaxed in certain instances, such as in Donato v. Court of Appeals where the petitioner was residing in the United States and personal compliance was physically impossible, the Court found that the facts in the present case do not call for such relaxation. The Court noted that the petitioner did not specify "the prevailing circumstances" nor advance that he had a meritorious case to warrant setting aside technicalities. The material facts presented did not sufficiently demonstrate a compelling reason to override the procedural lapse in the certification against forum shopping. The Court found no adequate explanation that would justify the relaxation of the rule in the interest of substantial justice, unlike in prior cases where such relaxation was granted.
Main Doctrine
The rule requiring personal signature on a certification against forum shopping may be relaxed when there is physical impossibility for the principal party to sign, provided that the circumstances are adequately explained and the interest of substantial justice warrants such relaxation.