GR 142572; (February, 2002) (Digest)
G.R. No. 142572 ; February 20, 2002
Republic of the Philippines (Department of Education, Culture and Sports) vs. Carmel Development, Inc.
FACTS
Carmel Development, Inc. filed a complaint for recovery of possession against the Department of Education (DepEd) concerning a parcel of land occupied by public schools. DepEd filed a motion for extension to file an answer and a subsequent motion to dismiss, alleging Carmel engaged in forum shopping by not complying with the certification requirement under Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 04-94. The trial court, however, declared DepEd in default, finding the period to answer had lapsed. Upon DepEd’s motion for reconsideration, the trial court lifted the order of default but denied the motion to dismiss, holding there was “substantial compliance” with the circular as the verification/certification was signed by Carmel’s counsel. DepEd filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which was dismissed, prompting this petition.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not finding grave abuse of discretion by the trial court when it refused to dismiss the complaint despite Carmel’s alleged failure to comply with the certification against forum shopping.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition and dismissed the complaint. The legal logic is anchored on the mandatory nature of the certification against forum shopping. Circular No. 04-94 (now embodied in Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court) requires the plaintiff or principal party to sign the certification, not merely counsel. The certification signed only by Carmel’s counsel was a defective certification, constituting a failure to comply with a mandatory requirement. This is not a mere technicality but a requisite to prevent forum shopping, which is a ground for dismissal. The trial court’s finding of “substantial compliance” was a clear error, as there was no compliance at all regarding the proper signatory. Consequently, the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion in not dismissing the case. The Court of Appeals likewise erred in affirming this ruling. The complaint was dismissed without prejudice, allowing Carmel to refile upon proper compliance.