GR 151900; (August, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 151900 August 30, 2005
CHRISTINE CHUA, Petitioner, vs. JORGE TORRES and ANTONIO BELTRAN, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Christine Chua filed a complaint for damages against respondents Jorge Torres and Antonio Beltran. The complaint arose from Beltran’s institution of a B.P. 22 case against Chua based on a dishonored check issued by her brother, Jonathan Chua. Christine alleged malicious prosecution, claiming the criminal action caused her social humiliation and embarrassment. Notably, Christine impleaded her brother Jonathan as a “necessary co-plaintiff” in the complaint, though the pleading contained no allegation of any damage suffered by him, and the prayer for relief sought damages solely for Christine. Jonathan did not sign the verification and certification against forum-shopping attached to the complaint, which was signed only by Christine as the “principal plaintiff.”
Respondents moved for the dismissal of the complaint, arguing that Jonathan Chua, as a named plaintiff, was required under the Rules of Court to execute the certification against forum-shopping. The Regional Trial Court granted the motion and dismissed the case, ruling that the certification requirement under Section 5, Rule 7 applies to all plaintiffs without distinction, and Jonathan’s failure to comply was a mandatory ground for dismissal.
ISSUE
Whether the absence of the signature in the required verification and certification against forum-shopping of a party misjoined as a plaintiff is a valid ground for the dismissal of the complaint.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court ruled that the dismissal was improper. The Court held that Jonathan Chua was a misjoined party plaintiff. A real party-in-interest is one who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment. The complaint showed that Jonathan had no cause of action against the respondents; he sustained no alleged damage, and the prayer for relief sought compensation only for Christine. Therefore, Jonathan was not a real party-in-interest but was improperly joined as a plaintiff.
Consequently, the verification and certification requirements, which are intended for the real parties to the action, did not apply to him. The rules on verification and forum-shopping are designed to ensure the truthfulness of allegations and prevent multiplicitous suits by the parties actually asserting claims. Since Jonathan asserted no claim, his joinder was superfluous, and his failure to sign the certification was inconsequential. The proper remedy for misjoinder is not the dismissal of the entire complaint but the dropping of the misjoined party. The case should proceed with Christine Chua as the sole proper plaintiff. The RTC’s order of dismissal was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.