GR 200191; (August, 2014) (Digest)
G.R. No. 200191 , August 20, 2014
LOURDES C. FERNANDEZ, Petitioner, vs. NORMA VILLEGAS and any person acting in her behalf including her family, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Lourdes C. Fernandez and her sister Cecilia Siapno, represented by attorney-in-fact Imelda S. Slater, filed a Complaint for Ejectment before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Dagupan City against respondent Norma Villegas and her family to recover possession of a parcel of land owned by the sisters. The MTCC ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering respondents to vacate and pay compensation. Respondents appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which reversed the MTCC, dismissed the complaint for lack of prior barangay conciliation and on grounds that respondents were builders in good faith, and ordered plaintiffs to pay attorney’s fees. Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. They then filed a petition for review before the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA dismissed the petition due to a defective verification and certification against forum shopping, as it was signed only by Lourdes and not by her co-plaintiff Cecilia. The CA also noted plaintiffs’ failure to comply with its order to submit an amended certification. Lourdes alone filed the instant petition for review on certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing outright the petition for review due to a defective verification and certification against forum shopping.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals committed reversible error. The Supreme Court ruled that there was substantial compliance with both the verification and certification against forum shopping requirements. Applying the guidelines from Ingles v. Estrada, the Court held that: (1) As to verification, Lourdes, being a co-owner and resident of the subject property, had ample knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations, and her lone signature constituted substantial compliance, especially since the suit was for ejectment which any co-owner could bring under Article 487 of the Civil Code for the benefit of all. (2) As to the certification against forum shopping, under reasonable circumstances where petitioners share a common interest and cause of action, the signature of only one of them substantially complies with the rule. Here, Lourdes and Cecilia, as co-owners and co-plaintiffs, shared a common interest and cause of action against the respondents. The rules on verification and forum shopping should not be interpreted with absolute literalness so as to subvert the orderly administration of justice. The petition was granted, and the case was remanded to the CA for further proceedings.