Formoso v. Philippine National Bank
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute originated from a loan secured by Nellie Panelo Vda. De Formoso and her late husband from the Philippine National Bank (PNB). After the loan was secured, the Formosos sold the mortgaged properties to Primitivo Malcaba. Subsequently, Malcaba attempted to pay the full loan obligation, including interests, to PNB. However, PNB allegedly refused to accept the payment and release the mortgage or surrender the titles to the properties. 2. Procedural History: The Formosos and Malcaba filed a Complaint for Specific Performance against PNB before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), seeking to compel PNB to accept the payment. The RTC ruled in favor of the petitioners, but denied their claims for damages and attorney's fees. PNB's motion for reconsideration was denied for procedural defects, and their subsequent appeal was dismissed as untimely. The petitioners then filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment, questioning the RTC's denial of damages, which was also denied. They subsequently filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA) challenging the RTC's orders. 3. The Petition: The petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, challenging adverse RTC orders. The CA dismissed this petition due to a procedural defect: the verification and certification of non-forum shopping were signed by only one of the multiple petitioners, Primitivo Malcaba, without proof of authorization from the others. The petitioners then filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court, arguing that the CA erred in dismissing the entire petition, asserting substantial compliance with the rules and that the issues raised were questions of law. They also contended that the CA should have given due course to Malcaba's portion of the petition and that their case was meritorious. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that the CA did not err in dismissing the petition for certiorari due to the procedural lapse, emphasizing the strict observance required for certiorari petitions and the lack of justification for relaxing the rules in this instance.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari on the ground of non-compliance with the requirements for verification and certification of non-forum shopping. Whether the rule on verification and certification of non-forum shopping should be liberally construed in cases involving questions of law. Whether the petition, insofar as petitioner Malcaba is concerned, should have been given due course as he was the signatory to the certification. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in giving more weight to technicalities when the petition was allegedly meritorious. Whether the issue of entitlement to damages and attorney's fees is a question of law or fact.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of non-compliance with verification and certification of non-forum shopping: The Court held that certiorari is an extraordinary remedy that requires strict observance of procedural rules. Section 1, Rule 65 and Section 3, Rule 46 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure mandate that a petition for certiorari must be accompanied by a sworn certification of non-forum shopping. The Court reiterated the ruling in Loquias v. Office of the Ombudsman and Athena Computers, Inc. v. Wesnu A. Reyes, stating that the certification must be signed by all petitioners unless one is authorized by the others. In this case, only Primitivo Malcaba signed the certification, and there was no proof of authorization from the other petitioners, nor a reasonable explanation for the sole signature. The Court emphasized that substantial compliance is generally not sufficient for the certification against forum shopping, unlike for verification. On the liberal construction of rules for questions of law: The Court disagreed with the petitioners' argument that the rule should be liberally construed because only questions of law were involved. It maintained that procedural rules, including those on certification against forum shopping, must be faithfully followed. The Court noted that the CA had given petitioners a chance to comply by filing a motion for reconsideration, which they failed to do. Therefore, the CA was constrained to deny their motion and affirm the dismissal. On giving due course to Malcaba's signature: The Court found no merit in the argument that the petition should have been given due course as far as Malcaba was concerned. It distinguished this case from others where leniency was shown, such as Heirs of Domingo Hernandez, Sr. v. Plaridel Mingoa, Sr. and Oldarico S. Traveno v. Bobongon Banana Growers Multi-Purpose Cooperative, where the lone signatories were relatives who shared a common interest and cause of action with the other petitioners. In the present case, Malcaba was not a relative and could not be presumed to speak for the other petitioners regarding their filing of other actions. On giving more weight to technicalities over merit: The Court found no error in the CA's dismissal based on procedural lapses. It reiterated that procedural rules are not to be belittled and must be followed unless there are persuasive reasons to relax them, which were absent in this case. The Court also addressed the petitioners' claim of a meritorious case, stating that the substantive issue of entitlement to damages and attorney's fees was a factual issue, not a question of law, which is beyond the scope of a petition for review on certiorari. On the nature of the issue regarding damages: The Court affirmed PNB's argument that the issue of whether petitioners were entitled to moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees was a factual issue. This requires an examination of the probative value of evidence presented, which is outside the purview of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The Court also noted that the Petition for Relief from Judgment itself lacked the required allegations of fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence.
Main Doctrine
The certification against forum shopping must be signed by all petitioners, and substantial compliance or liberal construction is generally not allowed for defects in this certification, especially when there is no showing of authorization or reasonable explanation for the non-compliance by other parties.