GR 117083; (October, 1995) (Digest)
G.R. No. 117083 . October 27, 1995
LAZARO V. KAVINTA, petitioner, vs. HON. PRUDENCIO ALTRE CASTILLO, JR., Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Quezon City, and ANTONIO C. FRANCO, respondents.
FACTS
On May 11, 1994, private respondent Antonio C. Franco, represented by his attorney-in-fact, filed a complaint for Recovery of Possession and Issuance of Writ of Demolition against petitioner Lazaro V. Kavinta and others before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. The complaint, docketed as Civil Case No. Q-94-20532, did not include the certification against forum shopping required under Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 04-94, which took effect on April 1, 1994. On June 20, 1994, petitioner moved to dismiss the complaint precisely on this ground of non-compliance with the mandatory circular.
In his July 4, 1994 opposition to the motion to dismiss, private respondent attached the required certification. Public respondent Judge Prudencio Altre Castillo, Jr., subsequently denied the motion to dismiss on July 20, 1994, citing the submission of the certification, and directed the defendants to file their answer. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was likewise denied.
ISSUE
Whether public respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to dismiss despite the complaint’s initial lack of the required certification against forum shopping, which was only submitted after the motion to dismiss was filed.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the respondent judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Court reaffirmed that Administrative Circular No. 04-94 is mandatory, as non-compliance is a cause for dismissal upon motion and after hearing. However, the Court has also held that substantial compliance with the circular is sufficient.
In this specific case, the Court considered the proximity of the complaint’s filing date (May 11, 1994) to the effectivity date of the circular (April 1, 1994) as a justifiable circumstance. Private respondent’s counsel admitted unawareness of the new requirement at the time of filing but acted with dispatch to submit the certification upon realization of the omission. The belated filing under these particular conditions was deemed a substantial compliance pro hac vice (for this occasion only).
The Court emphasized that this ruling should not be taken as a precedent, clarifying that the mere submission of a certification after a motion to dismiss on that ground is filed does not automatically constitute substantial compliance. To rule otherwise would strip the circular of its efficacy in preventing forum shopping. The directive for strict compliance remains, but under the unique temporal circumstances of this case, the denial of the motion to dismiss was sustained.