Cordova v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Maribeth Cordova filed a complaint for breach of contract and damages against private respondents Sps. Romeo and Marietta Laguardia, seeking a writ of preliminary injunction. The complaint alleged that private respondents filed a Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of Demolition in a prior case (Civil Case No. 187614) despite an alleged compromise agreement to dismiss the case. This prior case was presided over by public respondent Judge Ricardo F. Tornilla, who issued an Order of Demolition. Procedural History: The complaint was initially dismissed by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) on June 10, 1994, for failure to attach the required certification against forum shopping, as mandated by Administrative Circular No. 04-94. Petitioner submitted the certification on May 3, 1994, six days after filing the complaint on April 27, 1994. The RTC later dismissed the case again on October 6, 1995, for failure to prosecute, but this was reconsidered and set for pre-trial. Subsequently, on January 31, 1996, public respondent Judge Ricardo F. Tornilla and private respondents filed separate motions to dismiss, citing violation of Administrative Circular No. 04-94 and other grounds. The RTC granted the motion to dismiss on February 15, 1996. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied, leading her to elevate the case to the Court of Appeals. The Petition: The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's dismissal. Petitioner then filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court, arguing that the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in sustaining the dismissal for belated filing of the certification against forum shopping and for disregarding the alleged defect in the motion to dismiss due to lack of a notice of hearing. The Court of Appeals found that the certification was filed late on purpose, as a similar complaint (Civil Case No. 94-8374) was filed on the same date as the withdrawal of the prior case, with this case being filed earlier on the same day.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in sustaining the dismissal of the complaint for the belated filing of the certification against forum shopping. Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in disregarding the motion to dismiss for failure to state the date and time in the notice of hearing, rendering it a mere scrap of paper.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of belated filing of the certification against forum shopping: The Supreme Court reiterated that the requirement under Administrative Circular No. 04-94 (now Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure) for a certification against forum shopping is mandatory. The Court emphasized that the certification must be annexed to the complaint and filed simultaneously therewith. In this case, the petitioner filed the certification six days after the complaint, which was a clear violation. The Court rejected the petitioner's argument that the circular was not yet fully disseminated, noting it took effect on April 1, 1994, and was promulgated on February 8, 1994, providing ample notice. Furthermore, the Court found that the petitioner's claim of withdrawal of the prior case (Civil Case No. 94-8374) was misleading, as the complaint in the present case was filed earlier on the same date as the motion to withdraw the prior case. The Court distinguished the present case from Kavinta v. Castillo, Jr., stating that the ruling in Kavinta was pro hac vice and not a precedent for mere belated filing without special circumstances. The Court concluded that the petitioner's actions indicated a deliberate omission, and subsequent compliance did not excuse the initial failure, thus the complaint was dismissible on the ground of forum shopping. On the issue of the motion to dismiss lacking a notice of hearing: The Court found it unnecessary to dwell extensively on this issue, agreeing with the Court of Appeals' succinct ruling. The Court noted that the motions to dismiss requested a hearing on February 2, 1996, and copies were furnished to the petitioner's counsel, who filed an Objection/Comment. While there was no showing that the motions were actually heard, the petitioner did not raise this issue when she filed her Motion for Reconsideration. The Court cited jurisprudence holding that a procedural issue not raised on reconsideration is deemed waived. Moreover, any defect in procedural due process was deemed cured by the filing of the motion for reconsideration by the petitioner.
Main Doctrine
The requirement for a certification against forum shopping is mandatory, and belated compliance does not automatically excuse non-compliance, especially when the delay appears deliberate and not justified by special circumstances. A motion that fails to comply with the notice of hearing requirements is considered a mere scrap of paper, but defects can be cured by subsequent actions such as a motion for reconsideration.