GR 155738; (August, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 155738 . August 9, 2005
ANGEL PAGTALUNAN, rep. by ZENAIDA PAGTALUNAN, Petitioners, vs. RICARDO MANLAPIG, rep. by MIGUELA VICENTE, AND HON. COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.
FACTS
The case originated from a decision of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) ordering the ejectment of defendant-tenant Angel Pagtalunan from a 2,500-square-meter landholding in Bulacan, owned by Ricardo Manlapig, on the ground of non-payment of lease rentals. Following the DARAB’s decision, Zenaida Pagtalunan, as an heir of Angel Pagtalunan, filed a petition for review before the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.
The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition outright through a Resolution. The dismissal was not based on the merits of the agrarian case but on a procedural defect. The appellate court found that the Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping attached to the petition was signed only by Zenaida Pagtalunan. The records failed to show that she was authorized by her co-heirs and co-petitioners to sign the certification on their behalf.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for review due to a defective Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court upheld the dismissal. The Court emphasized the mandatory and strict nature of the requirements for verification and certification against forum shopping under Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court. The rule is clear that when there are multiple petitioners, the certification must be signed by all of them or by one who has been duly authorized to sign for and represent the others. The certification requires a declaration based on personal knowledge, which cannot be fulfilled by an unauthorized signatory.
The Supreme Court found no reversible error in the appellate court’s strict application of this procedural rule. Furthermore, the Court noted that the substantive issues raised by the petitioner—primarily questioning the DARAB’s factual finding of non-payment of rentals—were inappropriate for a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. Factual determinations of quasi-judicial agencies like the DARAB, when supported by substantial evidence, are accorded great respect and finality by the courts. The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. Thus, the petition was denied for both procedural and substantive reasons.