GR 150865; (June, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 150865 ; June 30, 2006
ART FUENTEBELLA, Park-in-Charge, and ROLLING HILLS MEMORIAL PARK, INC., Petitioners, vs. DARLICA CASTRO, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Darlica Castro filed a complaint for damages against petitioners Rolling Hills Memorial Park, Inc. and its Park-in-Charge, Art Fuentebella, before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Bacolod City. The complaint stemmed from alleged negligence during her husband’s burial, where the vault was improperly sized, causing distress. Respondent later withdrew this complaint. Subsequently, she filed a similar complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Attached to this new complaint was a Verification and Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping, which stated she had not commenced any other action involving the same issues.
Petitioners moved to dismiss the RTC case, arguing the certification was false due to the prior MTCC filing. The RTC denied the motion, holding the requirement should not be interpreted too literally to defeat its anti-forum shopping objective. Upon petitioners’ motion for reconsideration, the RTC clarified that the sanction for a false certification is indirect contempt, not dismissal. Petitioners then elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari and whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in refusing to dismiss the complaint based on an allegedly false certification against forum shopping.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. On the procedural issue, the Court found the appellate court correctly dismissed the petition for certiorari due to a defective certification. The certification was signed by a corporate officer without proof of authority to sign for the individual petitioner, Art Fuentebella, a fatal defect warranting dismissal.
On the substantive issue, the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Court explained that the prior MTCC complaint had been withdrawn and was no longer pending. The evils of forum shopping—litis pendentia and res judicata—were not present, as there was no identity of parties or rights such that a judgment in one would bar the other. An omission in the certificate regarding a withdrawn case is not fatal to merit dismissal. The proper sanction for a false certification, as provided under Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, is indirect contempt, without prejudice to administrative or criminal actions. The RTC’s application of this rule was correct.