G.R. No. 149909 . October 11, 2007.
TERESA, MARIA CHRISTINA, GENARO III, MARIA LUISA, CRISPIN JR., VINCENT and RASCHEL, all surnamed GABRIEL, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, EMMA, CORAZON and RAMONA, all surnamed RONQUILLO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners, heirs of the late Atty. Crispin F. Gabriel, sought the release of his executor’s compensation from the estate of Genaro G. Ronquillo, which was probated. The probate court had fixed the compensation and, upon Atty. Gabriel’s death, an amount of Php648,000.00 remained uncollected. A portion of the estate sale proceeds, which included this compensation, was deposited with the court. Respondents, heirs of the testator, opposed the release, alleging pending tax investigations on the estate.
Petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus with the Court of Appeals (CA) to compel the release of the funds and to challenge the probate court’s jurisdiction over the tax issue. The CA dismissed the petition outright due to procedural defects. The verification and certification against forum shopping were signed by only one petitioner, Teresa Gabriel, without proof of authority to sign for her six co-petitioners. Furthermore, the petition lacked the required written explanation for resorting to registered mail instead of personal service.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for certiorari due to fatal procedural defects in the certification against forum shopping and the mode of service.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals committed no reversible error. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, emphasizing strict compliance with procedural rules. The requirement for a certification against forum shopping is mandatory. When there are multiple petitioners, the certification must be signed by all, or the signing party must show proof of authority to represent the others. The attestation requires personal knowledge, which cannot be presumed. Here, Teresa Gabriel signed alone without any showing of authority from her co-petitioners, rendering the petition defective.
Regarding the mode of service, the Rules require that if filing or service is not done personally, a written explanation must accompany the pleading. This rule is designed to stress the priority of personal service. Petitioners’ failure to provide this explanation was an independent ground for dismissal. The Court rejected arguments of substantial compliance, holding that these procedural rules are not mere technicalities but essential to the orderly administration of justice. The merits of the claim for executor’s fees could not be reached due to these incurable procedural lapses.