Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping | PRACTICAL EXERCISES

Below is a comprehensive and meticulous discussion on Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping under Philippine remedial law and legal ethics, along with practical pointers and sample forms. This discussion covers the relevant rules, jurisprudential guidelines, and nuances that every Philippine practitioner should know.

I. OVERVIEW

  1. Legal Basis:

    • Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping are primarily governed by Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended (particularly Sections 4, 5, and 6).
    • The requirements have been refined through various Supreme Court rulings (e.g., Altres v. Empleo, Medado v. Heirs of Consing, Lopez v. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co., etc.).

  2. Purpose:

    • Verification assures that the allegations in the pleading have been made in good faith and are true and correct based on personal knowledge or authentic records.
    • Certification Against Forum Shopping ensures that parties do not simultaneously seek relief for the same cause of action in multiple courts or tribunals, preventing the possibility of conflicting rulings and wastage of judicial resources.

II. VERIFICATION

A. Definition & Purpose

  1. What is Verification?

    • A verification is a formal written statement by the party (or an authorized representative) that the allegations in the pleading are true and correct based on the signer’s personal knowledge or based on authentic records.

  2. Legal Provision:

    • Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court:

      “Except when otherwise specifically required by law or rule, pleadings need not be under oath, verified or accompanied by affidavit. A pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant has read the pleading and that the allegations therein are true and correct of his personal knowledge or based on authentic records…”

  3. Why Verification Matters:

    • It is intended to secure an assurance that the allegations in the pleading have been made in good faith or are warranted by the facts.
    • It likewise serves as a deterrent against frivolous or groundless lawsuits, since the one verifying may be held liable for perjury if the statements turn out to be false.

B. Who Should Verify

  1. General Rule:

    • The pleading should be verified by the party filing the case.
    • In case of corporations, partnerships, associations, or juridical entities, a person duly authorized by a board resolution or equivalent authority may execute the verification.

  2. Exceptions:

    • In certain cases, the court recognizes that only one of the plaintiffs or petitioners (or any duly authorized representative) may sign the verification if such signatory is in a position to verify truthfulness based on personal knowledge.
    • A lawyer cannot verify on behalf of the client, except under special circumstances (e.g., the client is abroad, or the verification pertains merely to formal correctness rather than factual allegations).

C. Personal Knowledge & Authentic Records

  1. Personal Knowledge Requirement:

    • The person executing the verification must be able to truthfully swear that the facts stated are within his or her direct knowledge.
    • Any statement that is purely derived from hearsay or speculation may compromise the validity of the verification.

  2. Authentic Records:

    • When verification is based on records, such records must be genuine, and the affiant must have had the opportunity to review and rely on them directly.

D. Substantial Compliance

  1. Not Strictly Jurisdictional:

    • The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the absence of a proper verification is a “mere formal defect” and may be cured by amendment or by the submission of a proper verification.
    • As a rule, courts grant liberality if there is substantial compliance or if the deficiency does not prejudice the adverse party.

  2. Caveat:

    • While the rule on liberal interpretation exists, an outright failure to file any verification, or a palpably defective verification (especially if the defect is intentional) may lead to outright dismissal.

III. CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING

A. Concept & Purpose

  1. Definition:

    • A Certification Against Forum Shopping is a sworn declaration by the plaintiff or principal party (or an authorized representative in case of a juridical entity) stating:
      1. That he/she has not commenced or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial agency, and, to the best of his/her knowledge, no such action is pending therein;
      2. That if there is such other pending action, a complete statement of the present status; and
      3. That if he/she should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending, he/she undertakes to report that fact within five (5) days to the court or agency where the complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.

  2. Legal Provision:

    • Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court:

      “The plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath in the complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief… that [he/she] has not theretofore commenced any action… or if there is such other pending action or claim… the present status thereof…”

  3. Policy Reason:

    • The certification is meant to curb the evil of forum shopping, which occurs when a litigant repetitively avails of multiple judicial remedies in different fora with the hope of obtaining a favorable decision in one of them.

B. Requisites for Valid Certification

  1. Must Be Signed by the Principal Party

    • The certification cannot be signed by counsel unless justified by a Special Power of Attorney (for individuals) or a board resolution (for corporate entities), and only when the party is unable to sign (e.g., abroad, incapacitated).
    • Where the principal party is a corporation, the authorized representative (e.g., corporate officer) must sign, usually accompanied by a board resolution or Secretary’s Certificate proving authority.

  2. Must Indicate Pending Actions or Claims

    • The certifying party must truthfully disclose any other cases already filed or pending that involve the same issues.
    • Non-disclosure of any pending action or claim may lead to dismissal of the case and possible disciplinary action against the party and/or counsel.

  3. Undertaking to Inform the Court of Similar Claims

    • The certification must contain an undertaking that if the party learns of a similar or related action, the party will inform the court or agency within five (5) days thereof.

C. Effect of Non-Compliance or False Certification

  1. Ground for Dismissal:

    • Failure to comply with the certification requirement shall be cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless otherwise provided, under the Rules of Court.
    • A wilful and deliberate non-compliance or a false certification can be punished as indirect contempt and may even constitute perjury.

  2. Subsequent Compliance:

    • Courts, in certain instances, allow parties to remedy a defective certification against forum shopping. However, a blatant and intentional disregard or a false certification may lead to harsh penalties.
    • If the deficiency is purely technical, courts may give leave for the filing of a corrected certification. If the case’s dismissal has already become final and executory, reinstatement is unlikely.

IV. LEGAL ETHICS IMPLICATIONS

  1. Duty of Candor:

    • A lawyer must ensure that the client is fully aware of the seriousness of filing a false or misleading verification or certification. Lawyers are duty-bound to avoid forum shopping or assisting a client in any form of misrepresentation.

  2. Possible Sanctions Against Counsel:

    • If a lawyer knowingly files a pleading without the proper verification or with a false certification, the lawyer may face disciplinary action (e.g., reprimand, suspension, or even disbarment for repeated or serious violations).

  3. Cooperation & Guidance:

    • Counsel should meticulously guide the client in listing all pending or past cases related to the cause of action. Failing to do so puts both client and counsel at risk.

V. PRACTICAL POINTERS

  1. Ascertain the Existence of Similar Suits:

    • Before drafting the pleading, thoroughly inquire with the client about other pending or past cases involving the same issues. Perform your own diligence by checking online court systems or official dockets if available.

  2. Ensure Proper Signatory:

    • For an individual client, the client himself/herself must sign both verification and certification.
    • For a corporation or other juridical entity, secure a board resolution or Secretary’s Certificate that shows the authority of the representative to sign.

  3. Execute Documents Under Oath:

    • Both verification and certification must be notarized. Always confirm that the affiant personally appears before a notary public, with valid identification.

  4. Observe Deadlines:

    • If the pleading is initially filed without a valid verification or certification, promptly rectify the omission. Courts are more lenient if rectifications are made in a timely manner.

  5. Avoid “Cut-and-Paste” Errors:

    • An important practical tip is to avoid mechanical copying from old pleadings. Ensure that all statements in the verification and certification are current, correct, and relevant to the specific cause of action.

VI. SAMPLE FORMS

Disclaimer: These sample forms are for instructional purposes. Adapt them to the specifics of each case, ensuring compliance with local rules (including spacing, margin, and format guidelines).

A. Verification

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )
CITY/MUNICIPALITY OF _______ ) S.S.

VERIFICATION

I, [Name of Affiant], of legal age, Filipino, and with address at [Complete Address], after being duly sworn in accordance with law, depose and state:

1. That I am the [party or authorized representative of (name of corporation/association)] in the above-entitled case;
2. That I have caused the preparation of the foregoing [Title of Pleading];
3. That I have read the allegations contained therein and that the same are true and correct of my own personal knowledge and/or based on authentic records.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this __ day of _________, 20__ in the City/Municipality of __________, Philippines.

Affiant:
___________________________
[Name and Signature]

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this __ day of __________, 20__ at __________, affiant exhibited to me his/her competent proof of identity [ID Details].

NOTARY PUBLIC

Doc. No. ____;
Page No. ____;
Book No. ____;
Series of 20__.

B. Certification Against Forum Shopping

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )
CITY/MUNICIPALITY OF _______ ) S.S.

CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING

I, [Name of Affiant], of legal age, Filipino, and with address at [Complete Address], after being duly sworn in accordance with law, hereby certify as follows:

1. That I am the [party or authorized representative of (name of corporation/association)] in the above-captioned case;
2. That I have not commenced or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial agency, and, to the best of my knowledge, no such action or claim is pending therein;
   [OR, if there is a pending related case: 
   "That there is another pending action involving the same issues, specifically [Case Title and Docket Number] pending before [Name of Court/Agency], and the present status of said case is [Status];"]
3. That if I should thereafter learn that a similar or related action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before any court, tribunal, or agency, I undertake to promptly inform this Honorable Court or the appropriate tribunal or agency thereof within five (5) days from such notice.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this __ day of _________, 20__ in the City/Municipality of __________, Philippines.

Affiant:
___________________________
[Name and Signature]

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this __ day of __________, 20__ at __________, affiant exhibited to me his/her competent proof of identity [ID Details].

NOTARY PUBLIC

Doc. No. ____;
Page No. ____;
Book No. ____;
Series of 20__.

C. Incorporation in the Pleading

  • Under the Rules of Court, the Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping are often attached to or incorporated into the initiatory pleading (e.g., Complaint, Petition for Certiorari, etc.).
  • Some practitioners prefer combining the Verification and Certification in one integrated affidavit, but note that each portion should still satisfy its own separate requirements.

VII. RECENT JURISPRUDENTIAL NOTES

  1. Altres v. Empleo (G.R. No. 180986, December 10, 2008)

    • Clarified that verification is not a jurisdictional requirement but is meant to assure that the pleadings are filed in good faith.

  2. Limpot v. CA

    • Reiterated the importance of strict compliance with certification requirements to prevent forum shopping.

  3. Medado v. Heirs of Consing

    • Emphasized that defects in verification or certification can be cured subsequently, provided there is no intention to mislead and there is substantial compliance.

VIII. CONCLUSION

Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping are indispensable elements of proper pleading in Philippine practice. They serve the dual purpose of upholding the truthfulness of allegations and preventing litigants from abusing court processes through multiple filings. Non-compliance can result in the dismissal of the case and exposes both client and counsel to ethical sanctions.

Key Takeaways:

  1. Ensure the proper person signs the verification and certification.
  2. Make a full disclosure of any similar or related suits.
  3. Notarize both verification and certification properly.
  4. In case of omission or defects, promptly seek leave of court to cure them—courts may allow liberal application, but only if done in good faith.
  5. Counsel must always advise clients thoroughly to avoid perjury and forum shopping violations.

Above all, the mantra for every Philippine litigator is to maintain good faith in pleading and candor towards the tribunal. Proper compliance with verification and certification requirements embodies these ethical imperatives and reinforces the integrity of judicial proceedings.

Disclaimer: This content is not legal advice and may involve AI assistance. Information may be inaccurate.

Privacy Policy

Terms of Use

Lawyer Login

 
 
Privacy Policy         Terms of Use         Lawyer Login