G.R. No. 261610, August 09, 2023
JAROSLAV DOBES, BARBORA PLASKOVA, AND BONO LUKAS PLASEK (MINOR), PETITIONERS, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS [FORMER THIRD DIVISION], OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, THROUGH SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, THROUGH CHIEF STATE COUNSEL, HONORABLE RICARDO V. PARAS III, AND BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION, THROUGH COMMISSIONER JAIME H. MORENTE, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioners Jaroslav Dobes and Barbora Plaskova are Czech citizens, and Bono Lukas Plasek is Plaskova’s minor child born in the Philippines. Dobes claimed to be the spiritual leader of the “Guru Jara Path,” and Plaskova its second-highest member. They alleged persecution in the Czech Republic due to their religion, including the burning of their monastery, police harassment, and media disinformation, leading them to flee to the Philippines in 2009. In 2011, they were criminally charged in the Czech Republic with multiple counts of rape and defamation. In 2014/2015, an international arrest warrant was issued for Dobes after a conviction in absentia for rape. The Czech Embassy informed the Bureau of Immigration (BI) that they were fugitives with invalid travel documents. The BI issued a Summary Deportation Order against Dobes and Plaskova in March 2015. They were subsequently arrested and detained. They then applied for recognition as refugees with the Department of Justice (DOJ) under DOJ Circular No. 058, which suspended the deportation proceedings. In May 2015, the Czech judgment of conviction was annulled, and the case was remanded for a new trial. The DOJ denied their refugee applications, finding they failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution and noting that religious freedom is respected in the Czech Republic. The DOJ also found they were using the refugee process to evade criminal prosecution. Their motions for reconsideration and bail were denied. The Office of the President (OP) affirmed the DOJ, additionally ruling that Dobes and Plaskova were excluded from refugee protection under Article 1(F) of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees due to serious reasons for considering they committed serious non-political crimes. Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) via a Petition for Review under Rule 43. The CA dismissed the petition for failure to comply with the certification against forum shopping requirement, as the verification and certification were signed only by Dobes on behalf of all petitioners without the required proof of authority for Plaskova and representation for the minor Plasek.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the Petition for Review for failure to comply with the certification against forum shopping requirement under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s dismissal. The certification against forum shopping is a mandatory requirement, and non-compliance is a sufficient ground for dismissal. For a petition filed by multiple petitioners, each petitioner must sign the certification, or those who did not sign must show a special power of attorney (SPA) authorizing the signatory to act on their behalf. In this case, only Dobes signed the verification and certification. There was no SPA from Plaskova authorizing Dobes to represent her. Furthermore, for the minor Plasek, Dobes failed to present proof of his authority as a substitute guardian or that he was duly authorized by the minor’s legal guardian (Plaskova) to sign on the minor’s behalf. The petitioners’ argument that Dobes, as the spiritual leader and father-figure, could sign for them was insufficient. The rules on certification are strictly applied. The Court also noted that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 (which petitioners filed with the Supreme Court) is not the proper remedy to challenge the CA’s dismissal of their Rule 43 petition, as such dismissal was a final order that should have been appealed via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. However, even if the procedural technicalities were set aside, the Court found the substantive claims unmeritorious. The OP correctly excluded Dobes and Plaskova from refugee protection under Article 1(F) of the 1951 Convention due to serious reasons for considering they committed serious non-political crimes (multiple rape charges) outside the Philippines. They also failed to prove a well-founded fear of persecution based on religion, as evidence showed religious freedom is protected in the Czech Republic, and the state’s interest in them appeared to be based on criminal charges, not their beliefs.