GR 149253; (April, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 149253 ; April 15, 2004
SPOUSES JIMMY and PATRI CHAN, petitioners, vs. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF ZAMBOANGA DEL NORTE IN DIPOLOG CITY, Branch 9, CYREANO HAMOY, and SHIELDA HAMOY-SINGALIVO, Respondents.
FACTS
On June 20, 1994, respondents Cyreano Hamoy and Shielda Hamoy-Singalivo filed a Complaint for Damages against petitioners Spouses Jimmy and Patri Chan and their bus driver, Virgilio Egay. The complaint alleged that on June 23, 1993, a Chan Transit bus, driven negligently by Egay, collided with a jeep driven by Cyreano, causing severe injuries to Cyreano and totally wrecking the jeep owned by Shielda. The complaint was verified by Cyreano but lacked the required Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping under Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 04-94. The petitioners filed an Answer without initially objecting to this omission.
Subsequently, on July 19, 1994, the petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss based precisely on the absence of the certification. In opposition, the respondents submitted a Motion to Admit an Affidavit of Non-Forum Shopping executed by their counsel. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, accepting the belated submission as a substantial compliance. The petitioners did not seek reconsideration or file a certiorari petition against this order. Instead, they proceeded with the case, actively participating in pre-trial and other proceedings, before eventually filing a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which was dismissed.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to dismiss for non-compliance with the certification on non-forum shopping requirement.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the appellate court’s decision. The legal logic is anchored on the principle of estoppel and the rules governing special civil actions. By filing their Answer without initially raising the lack of certification, and by actively participating in the pre-trial and other proceedings after the denial of their motion to dismiss without seeking timely reconsideration or certiorari, the petitioners are deemed to have waived any objection to the procedural defect and are estopped from assailing the trial court’s interlocutory order at a late stage. A petition for certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal or reconsideration.
Furthermore, the Court emphasized that procedural rules may be relaxed to serve substantial justice. The complaint was filed shortly after the effectivity of the circular requiring the certification. The respondents’ subsequent submission of their counsel’s affidavit, though belated, constituted substantial compliance. The core of the case is an action for damages, and the paramount interest of justice is best served by resolving the substantive merits of the case rather than dismissing it on a procedural technicality, especially where the lapse has been cured and no intent to forum-shop was shown.