GR 143016; (August, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 143016 ; August 30, 2000
MR. & MRS. RONNIE DAR, MR. & MRS. RANDY ANGELES, MR. & MRS. JOY CONSTANTINO and MR. & MRS. LIBERTY CRUZ, petitioners, vs. HON. ROSE MARIE ALONZO-LEGASTO, in her capacity as the Presiding Judge in the Metropolitan Trial Court of Metro Manila, Branch 41, Quezon City and NENITA CO BAUTISTA represented by VICTORIO A. BAUTISTA, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondent Nenita Co Bautista filed an unlawful detainer case against the petitioners, who were sued jointly as “Mr. and Mrs.” in the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City. The petitioners subsequently filed a petition for review on certiorari and mandamus before the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals dismissed this petition for failure to comply with the rule on certification of non-forum shopping under Administrative Circular No. 04-94. The appellate court found that the certification attached to the petition was signed only by the husbands—Ronnie Dar, Randy Angeles, Joy Constantino, and Liberty Cruz—without any attached authority to sign for their respective spouses, who were co-petitioners.
ISSUE
Whether the petition filed before the Court of Appeals is dismissible for violation of the rule on certification of non-forum shopping, given that only one spouse from each married couple signed the certification.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ dismissal. The Court ruled that under the circumstances, the signing of the certification by one spouse substantially complies with the rule. The rationale is that the rule on non-forum shopping, while mandatory, should not be interpreted with absolute literalness to subvert its ultimate objective of achieving substantial justice. The Court emphasized that the petitioners were sued jointly over a property in which they have a common interest arising from their absolute community of property. Therefore, the act of one spouse in signing the certification binds the other, as they share a unity of interest in the subject matter of the litigation. The rule of substantial compliance applies, and the dismissal by the Court of Appeals was overly technical. The case was remanded to the Court of Appeals for proper disposition.