G.R. No. 165496 ; February 12, 2007
HUN HYUNG PARK, Petitioner, vs. EUNG WON CHOI, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Hun Hyung Park filed a criminal complaint for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 against respondent Eung Won Choi. After the prosecution rested its case, the respondent filed a demurrer to evidence, which the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) granted, dismissing the criminal case. Petitioner appealed the civil aspect to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which initially ordered respondent to pay the civil liability but, upon reconsideration, remanded the case to the MeTC for the respondent to present evidence on the civil aspect.
Petitioner elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA) via a petition for review. The CA dismissed the petition due to procedural deficiencies: an allegedly defective verification and certification of non-forum shopping, failure to attach required pleadings, submission of an uncertified and illegible copy of the RTC decision, and failure to implead the People of the Philippines as a party-respondent. Petitioner now assails these reasons before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for review on the grounds of procedural infirmities, particularly the alleged defect in the verification of the petition.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s dismissal. The core ruling centered on the proper interpretation of the verification requirement under Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court. The rule states that a pleading is verified by an affidavit that the allegations are “true and correct of his personal knowledge or based on authentic records.”
Petitioner argued that the disjunctive “or” allowed him to verify the petition based solely on his personal knowledge. The Court rejected this rigid interpretation. It held that the word “or” in the rule bears both a disjunctive and conjunctive sense, meaning verification can be based on personal knowledge, authentic records, or both. The appropriate basis depends on the nature of the allegations. Where allegations concern matters of record from court proceedings—not within the personal knowledge of the petitioner—reliance on “authentic records” is necessary for a proper verification.
The Court found that petitioner’s verification, based solely on “personal knowledge,” was defective because the petition contained allegations about events in court (e.g., admissions during pre-trial) which he could not have personally known. Verification is a substantive requirement to ensure truthfulness, not a mere formality. The CA correctly treated the defective verification as a fatal flaw warranting dismissal. The Court also found no merit in petitioner’s challenge to the other procedural grounds cited by the CA, upholding its exercise of discretion in dismissing the petition for non-compliance with the rules.