G.R. No. 147989 ; February 20, 2006
ROLANDO CLAVECILLA, Petitioner, vs. TERESITO QUITAIN and RICO QUITAIN, et al., Respondents.

FACTS

Respondents Teresito and Rico Quitain filed a complaint before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) to enforce an amicable settlement dated August 19, 1996, wherein petitioner Rolando Clavecilla agreed to purchase a property by October 15, 1996, or voluntarily vacate it. Clavecilla defended himself by claiming the agreement was novated by a subsequent October 29, 1996 agreement, which set a new payment deadline of November 5, 1996. The MTCC ruled for the Quitains, finding no novation. Clavecilla appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which dismissed his appeal for failure to timely file the required memorandum.
Clavecilla then filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA dismissed this petition outright because the mandatory Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping was signed only by his counsel, Atty. Oswaldo A. Macadangdang, and not by Clavecilla himself. In his motion for reconsideration, Clavecilla attached a Special Power of Attorney purportedly authorizing his counsel to sign the certification. The CA denied the motion, reasoning the authorization appeared to have been executed only after the petition was filed, constituting an impermissible attempt to cure a fatal defect.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for review due to a defective Certification of Non-Forum Shopping signed by counsel.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA’s dismissal. The legal logic is anchored on the mandatory and personal nature of the certification requirement under the Rules of Court. The certification is a crucial instrument to prevent forum shopping, and the duty to execute it under oath is strictly addressed to the petitioner, not to counsel. The Court found no compelling reason to relax this rule. Clavecilla’s submission of a Special Power of Attorney with his motion for reconsideration was correctly deemed insufficient, as it was executed after the filing of the petition. This belated act could not retroactively validate the defective certification. The rule is clear: the certification must be signed by the petitioner personally, and a counsel’s signature, without a contemporaneous and specific authorization, is a fatal defect warranting dismissal. The Court emphasized that procedural rules are not to be disregarded, and Clavecilla failed to show any special circumstance or compelling reason justifying liberal application.