G.R. No. 140862 . April 25, 2006. Wilson Go and Peter Go, Petitioners, vs. Anita Rico, in substitution of the late Pilar Rico, Respondent.
FACTS

Petitioners Wilson and Peter Go, registered owners of a property in Quezon City, filed an ejectment complaint against several lessees, including respondent Anita Rico’s predecessor. They alleged the lease contracts had expired, the tenants were on a month-to-month basis, and they had sent notices to vacate due to their need for the property’s exclusive use. The lessees refused. The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) ruled for the Gos, ordering ejectment, holding the defendants were mere possessors by tolerance.
The defendants contested ownership, asserting the property was part of the estate of Felisa Tamio de Buenaventura, pending probate. They claimed their original and renewed leases were with the estate’s administratrix, and the sale to the Gos by a prior special administratrix was fictitious and unauthorized. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed the MeTC, dismissing the complaint. It found the issue of possession inextricably linked to ownership due to the pending reconveyance suit filed by the estate against the Gos and the valid lease contracts with the estate.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petitioners’ appeal for failure to comply with the certification against forum shopping requirement.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ dismissal. The core legal logic rests on strict procedural compliance. The petitioners filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court. This rule mandates that the petition must be accompanied by a certification against forum shopping signed by the petitioner himself, not merely by his counsel. The petitioners’ certification was signed only by their lawyer. Their subsequent submission of a verification and certification signed by Peter Go, claiming Wilson Go was out of town, was correctly deemed insufficient and an afterthought by the appellate court. The Court emphasized that a special power of attorney for a lawyer to represent clients in pre-trial and hearings is not a substitute for the required personal certification. While courts often liberally construe rules to serve justice, the requirement of a certification against forum shopping is fundamental. It is designed to prevent forum-shopping, ensure judicial economy, and avoid conflicting decisions. The petitioners’ failure to adhere strictly to this mandatory requirement warranted the dismissal of their appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The Court found no reversible error in the appellate court’s application of this procedural rule.