G.R. No. 123686 November 16, 1999
SPS. APOLINARIO MELO and LILIA T. MELO, and JULIA BARRETO, petitioners, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and ARSENIA CORONEL, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Arsenia Coronel mortgaged land to secure a loan. Due to non-payment, the bank extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage, and the property was sold to petitioners as the highest bidders. Petitioners subsequently filed a Petition for the Ex-Parte Issuance of a Writ of Possession with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 60, Angeles City. To counter this, private respondent filed a Complaint for Injunction against petitioners in RTC, Branch 57, of the same city, seeking to enjoin them from consolidating ownership so she could exercise her right of redemption.
Petitioners moved to dismiss the injunction complaint on grounds of litis pendentia, forum shopping, and private respondent’s failure to attach the required certification of non-forum shopping to her initiatory pleading. Private respondent later amended her complaint to include a certification, which stated she had not filed any other action involving the same issues, but notably disclosed the pending petition for a writ of possession in Branch 60. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals denied the motion to dismiss, finding no forum shopping and ruling the certification substantially complied with the rules.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) whether private respondent was guilty of forum shopping by filing her injunction complaint while the writ of possession petition was pending in another branch; and (2) whether she substantially complied with the rule requiring a certification of non-forum shopping.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and dismissed the complaint. On the first issue, the Court found no forum shopping. The essence of forum shopping is filing multiple suits involving the same parties and cause of action to obtain a favorable judgment. Here, the two actions involved different causes of action and sought distinct reliefs. The ex-parte petition for a writ of possession was a summary proceeding under Act No. 3135 to obtain possession after a foreclosure sale, while the injunction suit was an ordinary action aimed at enforcing the right of redemption and preventing consolidation of title. A judgment in one would not constitute res judicata in the other, as the redemption right could still be exercised even after possession was granted.
However, the Court granted the dismissal based on the second issue: the fatal non-compliance with Administrative Circular No. 04-94, which mandates that a certification of non-forum shopping must accompany all initiatory pleadings filed in court. The Court held that this certification is not a mere formal requirement but a crucial condition for the admission of the pleading. Private respondent’s original complaint lacked this certification entirely. Her subsequent amendment to include it was not a permissible cure, as the absence of the certification at the time of filing was a jurisdictional defect that rendered the complaint not officially filed. The Circular allows no leeway for amendment; the case must be dismissed without prejudice. The Court emphasized that strict adherence is necessary to prevent the evils of forum shopping, and no compelling reason or special circumstance excused private respondent’s omission. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed without prejudice to its refiling, subject to prescription.