Clavecilla v. Quitain 482 SCRA 623 (2006)

FACTS:

1.      Teresito and Rico Quitain filed a complaint against Rolando Clavecilla for the enforcement of the amicable settlement entered into by them before the Lupon Tagapamayapa.

2.      Pertinent portions of said settlement reads: That the respondent (Clavecilla) agreed to purchase the property on October 15, 1996; Failure to pay the property on the said date the respondent will voluntarily vacate the place with the assistance of five thousand (P5,000.00) pesos only.

3.      The complainant (Rico Quitain) agreed to the demand of the respondent.

4.      The Quitains alleged that Clavecilla failed to pay the amount agreed upon and six months had already passed since the agreement was entered into and yet Clavecilla has still not left the premises.

5.      When the trial ensued it was shown that the Verification and Certification of non-forum shopping, which accompanied the petition at bench, was executed and signed by petitioner’s counsel Atty. Oswaldo A. Macadangdang, without the proper authority from petitioner, in violation of Sec. 5, Rule 7 and Sec. 2, Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The duty to certify under oath is strictly addressed to petitioner, Rolando Clavecilla. To allow delegation of said duty to anyone would render Revised Circular No. 28-91 inutile.

6.      Petitioner moves for the reconsideration of our Resolution dated 05 October 2000 dismissing the petition for the reason that the certificate of non-forum shopping was signed by petitioner’s counsel and not by the petitioner.

7.      Admitting that the duty to sign under oath the certificate is addressed to the petitioner, petitioner attached to his motion a Special Power of Attorney dated 09 August 2000 authorizing his counsel to sign the certificate. The court believes that this authorization was made after the petition had been filed, in a vain attempt to cure the fatal defect, for if Atty. Macadangdang had such authority, he would have indicated that in the Verification and Certification he signed on 25 August 2000 attached to the petition.

8.      Petitioner avers that: his lawyer had the authority to sign the certification against forum shopping; the CA was hasty in concluding that the authorization of petitioner’s lawyer was made after the petition had been filed; the CA should have granted petitioner the benefit of the doubt that he gave such authorization to his lawyer at the time that his lawyer signed the verification and certification against forum shopping; petitioner’s failure to have a properly executed certification against forum shopping attached to his petition for review is not fatal; the rules of procedure are used only to help secure and not override substantial justice, and the CA departed from the established liberal interpretation of the rules despite petitioner’s substantial compliance with the rule on non-forum shopping.

ISSUE: W/N the CA erred in their Judgment with regards the SPA given by the petitioner to his counsel?

RULING: The SC disagrees with the CA. The rule is that any suspicion on the authenticity and due execution of the special power of attorney which is a notarized document, thus a public document, cannot stand against the presumption of regularity in their favor absent evidence that is clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant.

In this case, the petition before the CA was filed on September 13, 2000. The special power of attorney meanwhile was dated August 9, 2000. Absent any proof that the special power of attorney was not actually in existence before the petition was filed, this Court has no recourse but to believe that it was indeed in existence at such time.

The next matter to be determined is whether the CA was correct in dismissing Clavecilla’s petition and motion for reconsideration, notwithstanding the authority given by Clavecilla in favor of his lawyer to sign the verification and certification in his behalf.

The Court answers in the affirmative.

Obedience to the requirements of procedural rules is needed if we are to expect fair results therefrom, and utter disregard of the rules cannot justly be rationalized by harking on the policy of liberal construction. Time and again, this Court has strictly enforced the requirement of verification and certification of non-forum shopping under the Rules of Court. This case is no exception.

Verification is required to secure an assurance that the allegations of the petition have been made in good faith, or are true and correct and not merely speculative.

In this case, petitioner’s counsel signed the verification alleging that he had read the petition and the contents thereof are true and correct of his own "knowledge and belief."

On this ground alone, the petition should already be dismissed for as provided for in Section 4 Rule 7 of the Rules of Court

While the Court has exercised leniency in cases where the lapse in observing the rules was committed when the rules have just recently taken effect, the attendant circumstances in this case however do not warrant such leniency.

The certification against forum shopping in this case was signed by petitioner’s counsel despite the clear requirement of the law that petitioners themselves must sign the certification. The certification must be made by petitioner himself and not by counsel, since it is petitioner who is in the best position to know whether he has previously commenced any similar action involving the same issues in any other tribunal or agency. And the lack of a certification against forum shopping, unlike that of verification, is generally not cured by its submission after the filing of the petition.Clavecilla v. Quitain 482 SCRA 623 (2006)

FACTS:

1.      Teresito and Rico Quitain filed a complaint against Rolando Clavecilla for the enforcement of the amicable settlement entered into by them before the Lupon Tagapamayapa.

2.      Pertinent portions of said settlement reads: That the respondent (Clavecilla) agreed to purchase the property on October 15, 1996; Failure to pay the property on the said date the respondent will voluntarily vacate the place with the assistance of five thousand (P5,000.00) pesos only.

3.      The complainant (Rico Quitain) agreed to the demand of the respondent.

4.      The Quitains alleged that Clavecilla failed to pay the amount agreed upon and six months had already passed since the agreement was entered into and yet Clavecilla has still not left the premises.

5.      When the trial ensued it was shown that the Verification and Certification of non-forum shopping, which accompanied the petition at bench, was executed and signed by petitioner’s counsel Atty. Oswaldo A. Macadangdang, without the proper authority from petitioner, in violation of Sec. 5, Rule 7 and Sec. 2, Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The duty to certify under oath is strictly addressed to petitioner, Rolando Clavecilla. To allow delegation of said duty to anyone would render Revised Circular No. 28-91 inutile.

6.      Petitioner moves for the reconsideration of our Resolution dated 05 October 2000 dismissing the petition for the reason that the certificate of non-forum shopping was signed by petitioner’s counsel and not by the petitioner.

7.      Admitting that the duty to sign under oath the certificate is addressed to the petitioner, petitioner attached to his motion a Special Power of Attorney dated 09 August 2000 authorizing his counsel to sign the certificate. The court believes that this authorization was made after the petition had been filed, in a vain attempt to cure the fatal defect, for if Atty. Macadangdang had such authority, he would have indicated that in the Verification and Certification he signed on 25 August 2000 attached to the petition.

8.      Petitioner avers that: his lawyer had the authority to sign the certification against forum shopping; the CA was hasty in concluding that the authorization of petitioner’s lawyer was made after the petition had been filed; the CA should have granted petitioner the benefit of the doubt that he gave such authorization to his lawyer at the time that his lawyer signed the verification and certification against forum shopping; petitioner’s failure to have a properly executed certification against forum shopping attached to his petition for review is not fatal; the rules of procedure are used only to help secure and not override substantial justice, and the CA departed from the established liberal interpretation of the rules despite petitioner’s substantial compliance with the rule on non-forum shopping.

ISSUE: W/N the CA erred in their Judgment with regards the SPA given by the petitioner to his counsel?

RULING: The SC disagrees with the CA. The rule is that any suspicion on the authenticity and due execution of the special power of attorney which is a notarized document, thus a public document, cannot stand against the presumption of regularity in their favor absent evidence that is clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant.

In this case, the petition before the CA was filed on September 13, 2000. The special power of attorney meanwhile was dated August 9, 2000. Absent any proof that the special power of attorney was not actually in existence before the petition was filed, this Court has no recourse but to believe that it was indeed in existence at such time.

The next matter to be determined is whether the CA was correct in dismissing Clavecilla’s petition and motion for reconsideration, notwithstanding the authority given by Clavecilla in favor of his lawyer to sign the verification and certification in his behalf.

The Court answers in the affirmative.

Obedience to the requirements of procedural rules is needed if we are to expect fair results therefrom, and utter disregard of the rules cannot justly be rationalized by harking on the policy of liberal construction. Time and again, this Court has strictly enforced the requirement of verification and certification of non-forum shopping under the Rules of Court. This case is no exception.

Verification is required to secure an assurance that the allegations of the petition have been made in good faith, or are true and correct and not merely speculative.

In this case, petitioner’s counsel signed the verification alleging that he had read the petition and the contents thereof are true and correct of his own "knowledge and belief."

On this ground alone, the petition should already be dismissed for as provided for in Section 4 Rule 7 of the Rules of Court

While the Court has exercised leniency in cases where the lapse in observing the rules was committed when the rules have just recently taken effect, the attendant circumstances in this case however do not warrant such leniency.

The certification against forum shopping in this case was signed by petitioner’s counsel despite the clear requirement of the law that petitioners themselves must sign the certification. The certification must be made by petitioner himself and not by counsel, since it is petitioner who is in the best position to know whether he has previously commenced any similar action involving the same issues in any other tribunal or agency. And the lack of a certification against forum shopping, unlike that of verification, is generally not cured by its submission after the filing of the petition.