GR 191906; (June, 2014) (Digest)
G.R. No. 191906 , June 2, 2014
JOSELITO MA. P. JACINTO (Formerly President of F. Jacinto Group, Inc.), Petitioner, vs. EDGARDO GUMARU, JR., Respondent.
FACTS
On December 6, 2004, a Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision in favor of respondent Edgardo Gumaru, Jr. and against petitioner Joselito Ma. P. Jacinto and F. Jacinto Group, Inc., ordering them to pay various monetary awards. Petitioner’s appeal to the NLRC was not perfected due to failure to post the required bond, making the Labor Arbiter’s Decision final and executory. A Writ of Execution was issued. Petitioner’s property was levied upon for auction. Petitioner filed an “Extremely Urgent Motion to Lift and Annul Levy on Execution,” which the Labor Arbiter denied. Petitioner appealed to the NLRC, which set aside the Labor Arbiter’s order and granted the motion to lift the levy, remanding the case for further execution proceedings. Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) assailing the NLRC Resolutions. The verification and certification against forum shopping attached to the CA Petition was signed by petitioner’s counsel, Atty. Ronald Mark S. Daos, not by petitioner himself. The CA dismissed the petition due to this defect. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, attaching an affidavit executed abroad where he affirmed the petition’s contents and certified against forum shopping, and explained his physical inability to travel to a consular office. The CA denied the motion, stating that certiorari is a prerogative writ that must be applied for in strict accordance with the Rules.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the Petition for Certiorari due to a defective verification and certification against forum shopping signed by counsel instead of the petitioner.
RULING
The Supreme Court DENIED the petition. The Court held that the certification against forum shopping must be signed by the petitioner himself, not by counsel. The authority of counsel is limited to procedural matters and does not extend to signing the certification, which is a personal undertaking by the party. The Court found no compelling reason to relax the rule, as petitioner’s subsequent submission of an affidavit did not cure the initial defect. The Court also noted that the case had become moot and academic because, during the pendency of the appeal, the judgment in the labor case had been fully satisfied. The satisfaction of the judgment rendered the proceedings terminated, leaving no more proceedings to speak of, and the case passed beyond review.