G.R. No. 132467 ; October 18, 2004
Socorro Chua, et al., petitioners, vs. Romualdo Santos, in his capacity as Assistant Building Official of the City Engineer’s Office of Quezon City, et al., respondents.

FACTS

The petitioners were occupants of a residential lot in Quezon City. The registered heirs of the property filed a complaint with the City Building Office, alleging the petitioners’ structures were built without the requisite building permits. The Assistant Building Official, respondent Romualdo Santos, issued a resolution ordering the petitioners to self-demolish their houses for being illegal constructions violative of the National Building Code. The petitioners filed a complaint for injunction and damages in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to stop the demolition, claiming they were lessees of the original owner and that the Building Official had no authority to order eviction. The RTC denied their application for a preliminary injunction, citing the Building Official’s authority under the National Building Code.
The petitioners then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) to nullify the RTC order. The CA dismissed the petition outright on procedural grounds. It found that the attached certification against forum shopping was signed by only one petitioner, not all. It also noted the petitioners failed to provide a written explanation for not effecting personal service of the petition on the private respondents, and that they filed the certiorari petition without first filing a motion for reconsideration of the RTC’s order.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for certiorari on procedural grounds.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. The Court held that the petitioners’ non-compliance with procedural rules was fatal to their cause. The rule requiring a certification against forum shopping to be signed by all petitioners is mandatory. The certification is a personal undertaking, and its purpose—to prevent forum shopping—is undermined if not all parties assure the court of their compliance. The petitioners’ claim of good faith and the fact that one petitioner signed for the others did not excuse the defect; the rule explicitly states such a deficiency is not curable by mere amendment.
Furthermore, the Court upheld the CA’s finding on the lack of a motion for reconsideration. A motion for reconsideration is a condition precedent for filing a certiorari petition, as it affords the lower court an opportunity to correct its own error. The petitioners failed to show any recognized exception to this rule. While rules of procedure may be relaxed in certain meritorious cases, the Court found no compelling reason to do so here, especially given the petitioners’ multiple procedural lapses. The dismissal of their petition for certiorari was therefore proper.