G.R. No. 127064. August 31, 1999.
FIVE STAR BUS COMPANY INC., and IGNACIO TORRES, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, JUDGE JAIME F. BAUTISTA, RTC-Br. 75, Valenzuela, Metro Manila and SAMUEL KING SAGARAL II, respondents.

FACTS

On November 9, 1991, a collision occurred between a Suzuki Supercarry Mini-Van driven by private respondent Samuel King Sagaral II and a passenger bus owned by petitioner Five Star Bus Company and driven by co-petitioner Ignacio Torres. On April 1, 1992, Sagaral filed a civil action for damages against petitioners (Civil Case No. 3812-V-92). After Sagaral rested his case on December 26, 1995, the trial court ordered petitioners to present their evidence. The presentation of evidence was delayed by several postponements, including one due to the presiding judge’s forced leave, another due to petitioner Torres’s failure to appear because he was detained in a separate criminal case, and the court’s redesignation as a special court for heinous crimes. The case was re-raffled to Branch 75 under Judge Jaime F. Bautista. Petitioners filed motions to reset scheduled hearings, including one due to their counsel’s conflict of schedule. On July 16, 1996, when the case was called, petitioners’ counsel arrived twenty minutes late. Upon Sagaral’s motion, the trial court issued an Order deeming petitioners’ right to present evidence waived and considering the case submitted for decision. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied, with the trial court noting the case had been pending for over four years and petitioners had caused repeated delays. Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The appellate court summarily dismissed the petition because the certification on non-forum shopping required by Supreme Court Circular No. 28-91 was signed by counsel and not by the petitioners themselves. The motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals can summarily dismiss a petition on the ground that the certification on non-forum shopping was signed by counsel and not by the petitioners themselves.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the resolutions of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that Circular No. 28-91, which requires the party-litigant to sign the certification on non-forum shopping, is mandatory. While substantial compliance may be sufficient under justifiable circumstances, it cannot be applied in this case. Petitioners’ counsel gave a “frail excuse” for non-compliance, i.e., oversight and haste. The Court cited Ortiz v. Court of Appeals, which held that substantial compliance will not suffice in a matter involving strict observance as provided in the Circular. The attestation requires personal knowledge by the party, which cannot be accomplished by counsel. Furthermore, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion by the trial court in deeming petitioners’ right to present evidence waived, as the case had been pending for a long time with the court often accommodating petitioners’ motions, and their actions could be seen as dilatory tactics. The petition for review was denied, and the trial court was directed to render its decision without delay.