Prescilla Alma Jose v Ramon Javellana

G.R. No. 158239IJanuary 25, 2012

Bersamin, J.:

Doctrine
For forum shopping to exist, both actions must involve the same transaction, same essential facts and circumstances and
must raise identical causes of action, subject matter and issues. Clearly, it does not exist where different orders were
questioned, two distinct causes of action and issues were raised, and two objectives were sought.

FACTS
On September 8, 1979, Margarita Marquez Alma Jose (Margarita) sold for consideration of P160,000.00 to respondent
Ramon Javellana by deed of conditional sale two parcels of land. They agreed that Javellana would pay P80,000.00 upon
the execution of the deed and the balance ofP80,000.00 upon the registration of the parcels of land under the Torrens
System and that should Margarita become incapacitated, her son and attorney-in-fact, Juvenal M. Alma Jose (Juvenal), and
her daughter, petitioner Priscilla M. Alma Jose, would receive the payment of the balance and proceed with the application
for registration.After Margarita died and with Juvenal having predeceased Margarita without issue, the vendor’s undertaking
fell on the shoulders of Priscilla, being Margarita’s sole surviving heir. However, Priscilla did not comply with the
undertaking to cause the registration of the properties under the Torrens System, and, instead, began to improve the
properties by dumping filling materials therein with the intention of converting the parcels of land into a residential or
industrial subdivision.
Javellana commenced an action for specific performance, injunction, and damages against her in the Regional Trial Court
in Malolos, Bulacan (RTC), docketed as Civil Case No. 79-M-97. Priscilla filed a motion to dismiss, stating that the
complaint was already barred by prescription; and that the complaint did not state a cause of action.
On June 24, 1999 RTC upon Priscilla’s Motion for Reconsideration granted her Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that: 1.
Javellana had no cause of action, 2. No evidence showing the payment of the balance; 3. He had never demanded the
registration of the land from Margarita or Juvenal, or brought a suit for specific performance against Margarita or Juvenal.
On June 21, 2000, Javellana’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied. Accordingly, Javellana filed a notice of appeal from
the June 21, 2000 order, which the RTC gave due course to, and the records were elevated to the Court of Appeals. It appears
that pending the appeal, Javellana also filed a petition for certiorari in the CA to assail the June 24, 1999 and June 21, 2000 orders
dismissing his complaint (C.A.-G.R. SP No. 60455). The CA dismissed the petition for certiorari, finding that the RTC did
not commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing the orders. The CA promulgated its decisionin C.A.-G.R. CV No.
68259, reversing and setting aside the dismissal of Civil Case No. 79-M-97, and remanding the records to the RTC “for
further proceedings in accordance with law.”
Priscilla brought an appeal, one of the grounds is Javellana was guilty of forum shopping for filing in the CA a petition for
certiorari to assail the orders of the RTC that were the subject matter of his appeal pending in the CA. Javellana countered
that he was not guilty of forum shopping because at the time he filed the petition for certiorari the CA had not yet rendered
a decision in C.A.-G.R.CV No. 68259, and because the issue of ownership raised in C.A.-G.R. CV No. 68259 was different
from the issue of grave abuse of discretion raised in C.A.-G.R. SP No. 60455.

ISSUE
Whether or not Javellana is guilty of forum shopping?

RULING
No. No forum shopping was committed.

In his appeal in C.A.-G.R. CV No. 68259, Javellana aimed to undo the RTCs erroneous dismissal of Civil Case No. 79-M-
97 to clear the way for his judicial demand for specific performance to be tried and determined in due course by the RTC;
but his petition for certiorari had the ostensible objective to prevent (Priscilla) from developing the subject property and
from proceeding with the ejectment case until his appeal is finally resolved, as the CA explicitly determined in its decision
in C.A.-G.R. SP No. 60455.
Nor were the dangers that the adoption of the judicial policy against forum shopping designed to prevent or to eliminate
attendant. The first danger, i.e., the multiplicity of suits upon one and the same cause of action, would not materialize
considering that the appeal was a continuity of Civil Case No. 79-M-97, whereas C.A.-G.R. SP No. 60455 dealt with an
independent ground of alleged grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the RTC.
The second danger, i.e., the unethical malpractice of shopping for a friendly court or judge to ensure a favorable ruling or
judgment after not getting it in the appeal, would not arise because the CA had not yet decided C.A.-G.R. CV No. 68259 as
of the filing of the petition for certiorari.
Instead, the court sees the situation of resorting to two inconsistent remedial approaches to be the result of the tactical
misjudgment by Javellanas counsel on the efficacy of the appeal to stave off his caretakers eviction from the parcels of land
and to prevent the development of them into a residential or commercial subdivision pending the appeal. In the petition
for certiorari, Javellana explicitly averred that his appeal was inadequate and not speedy to prevent private respondent Alma
Jose and her transferee/assignee from developing and disposing of the subject property to other parties to the total
deprivation of petitioners rights of possession and ownership over the subject property, and that the dismissal by the RTC
had emboldened private respondents to fully develop the property and for respondent Alma Jose to file an ejectment case
against petitioners overseer. Thereby, it became far-fetched that Javellana brought the petition for certiorari in violation of
the policy against forum shopping.
 Elsa Medado vs Heirs of the late Antonio Consing
G.R. No. 186720 I February 8, 2012

Reyes, J.:

Doctrine
Verification of a pleading is a formal, not a jurisdictional, requirement intended to secure the assurance that the matters
alleged in a pleading are true and correct. The court may simply order the correction of unverified pleadings or act on them
and waive strict compliance with the rules. It is deemed substantially complied with when one who has ample knowledge to
swear to the truth of the allegations in the complaint or petition signs the verification; and when matters alleged in the
petition have been made in good faith or are true and correct.

FACTS
Sometime in 1996, petitioner Spouses Medado and the Estate of Consing, executed Deeds of Sale with Assumption of
Mortgage for the former's acquisition from the latter of the property in Cadiz City identified as Hacienda Sol. Records
indicate that the sale included the parcels of land covered by OCT No. P-498, TCT No. T-31275, TCT No. T-31276 and
TCT No. T-31277. As part of the deal, Spouses Medado undertook to assume the estate's loan with Philippine National
Bank (PNB).
Subsequent to the sale, however, the Estate of Consing offered the subject lots to the government via the Department of
Agrarian Reform's Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) program. On November 22, 2000, the Estate of Consing also instituted
with the RTC, Branch 44 of Bacolod City an action for rescission and damages, docketed as Civil Case No. 00-11320
against Spouses Medado, PNB and the Register of Deeds of Cadiz City, due to the alleged failure of the spouses to meet
the conditions in their agreement.
In the meantime that Civil Case No. 00-11320 for rescission was pending, Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) issued in
favor of the Estate of Consing a certificate of deposit of cash and agrarian reform bonds, as compensation for the lots covered
by the VOS. Spouses Medado feared that LBP would release the full proceeds thereof to the Estate of Consing. They claimed
to be the ones entitled to the proceeds considering that they had bought the properties through the Deeds of Sale with
Assumption of Mortgage which they and the Estate of Consing had earlier executed.
Spouses Medado instituted an action for injunction with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order to restrain
LBP from releasing the remaining amount of the VOS proceeds of the lots offered by the Estate of Consing, and restraining
the Estate of Consing from receiving these proceeds.
RTC granted the injunction (Medado) and the Writ of Preliminary was issued. The writ was implemented 1 day before the
hearing for the motion of reconsideration filed by the Heirs of Consing.
Feeling aggrieved, the heirs of the late Antonio Consing questioned the RTCs order via a petition for certiorari with the CA.
They sought, among other reliefs, the dismissal of the complaint for injunction for violation of the rules on litis pendentia
and forum shopping. On the matter of the absence of a motion for reconsideration of the trial court’s order before resorting
to a petition for certiorari, the heirs explained that the implementation of the questioned writs rendered their motion for
reconsideration moot and academic. The heirs argued that their case was within the exceptions to the general rule that a
petition under Rule 65 will not lie unless a motion for reconsideration is first filed.
CA nullified and set aside the ruling of RTC. The Ca ruled that the RTC gravely abused its discretion in taking cognizance
of Civil Case for injunction during the pendency of Civil Case for rescission and damages as this violates the rule against
forum shopping.

ISSUE
Whether or not the requirement for verification and certification against forum shopping complied with by the heirs of
Consing when the same is solely signed by Soledad

RULING
Yes. The authority of Soledad includes the filing of an appeal before the CA, including the execution of a verification and
certification against forum shopping therefor, being acts necessary to protect, sue, prosecute, defend and adopt whatever
action necessary and proper in relation to their rights over the subject properties.
In addition, the allegations and contentions embodied in the CA petition do not deviate from the claims already made by
the heirs in Civil Case Nos. 00-11320 and 797-C, both specifically mentioned in the SPA. We emphasize that the verification
requirement is simply intended to secure an assurance that the allegations in the pleading are true and correct, and not the
product of the imagination or a matter of speculation, and that the pleading is filed in good faith. We rule that there was no
deficiency in the petition's verification and certification against forum shopping filed with the CA.
In any case, we reiterate that where the petitioners are immediate relatives, who share a common interest in the property
subject of the action, the fact that only one of the petitioners executed the verification or certification of forum shopping
will not deter the court from proceeding with the action.
Furthermore, we have consistently held that verification of a pleading is a formal, not a jurisdictional, requirement intended
to secure the assurance that the matters alleged in a pleading are true and correct. Thus, the court may simply order the
correction of unverified pleadings or act on them and waive strict compliance with the rules. It is deemed substantially
complied with when one who has ample knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations in the complaint or petition signs
the verification; and when matters alleged in the petition have been made in good faith or are true and correct. It was based
on this principle that this Court had also allowed herein petitioner, via our Resolution dated April 22, 2009, a chance to
submit a verification that complied with Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, as amended, instead of us dismissing the
petition outright.
 Commision on Appointments vs Celso Paler
G.R. No. 172623 I March 3, 2010

Corona, J.:

FACTS
Respondent Paler was a Supervising Legislative Staff Officer II (SG-24) with the Technical Support Service of the
Commission on Appointments. On April 8, 2003, he submitted a request for vacation leave for 74 working days from August
1, 2003 to November 14, 2003. In a memorandum dated April 22, 2003, Ramon C. Nghuatco, Director III of Technical
Support Service, submitted to the Commission Secretary his comments/recommendation on Paler's application:

1. The request to go on leave of Mr. Paler is contingent upon the completion of his various Committee
assignments.
2. We have already acted favorably on his Leave Applications for 09 June 2003 - 30 July 2003, which may
already cover his reasons enumerated under items 1-5.
3. Mr. Paler's Sick Leave Application shall require a medical certificate from the attending physician
advising him of the need to undergo medical operation and the treatment and recuperation period
therefor.
Mr. Paler's Application for Leave may be acted upon depending on the completion of his work load
and submission of the medical certificate.
Since he already had an approved leave from June 9 to July 30, 2003, Paler left for the United States on June 8, 2003,
without verifying whether his application for leave (for August 1 November 14, 2003) was approved or denied.
In a letter dated September 16, 2003, the Commission Chairman informed Paler that he was being dropped from the roll of
employees effective said date, due to his continuous 30-day absence without leave and in accordance with Section 63, Civil
Service Commission (CSC) Memorandum Circular No. 14, s. 1999. Paler's son received the letter on September 23, 2003.
Paler moved for reconsideration but this was denied on February 20, 2004, on the ground that it was filed beyond the 15-
day reglementary period. The denial was received by Paler's son on March 18, 2004.
On appeal, the CSC reversed and set aside the Commission Chairman's decision dated September 16, 2003 per resolution
04-1214 dated November 9, 2004.
The Commission filed a motion for reconsideration but this was denied by the CSC per resolution No. 050833 dated June
23, 2005.This constrained petitioner to file with the CA a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.
Since Paler had in the meantime already reached the compulsory age of retirement on July 28, 2005 and was no longer
entitled to reinstatement, the CA affirmed with modification CSC resolution 04-1214 dated November 9, 2004 and
resolution No. 050833 dated June 23, 2005.
Petitioner's contentions are basically the same as those it presented to the CSC and the CA. In his comment, Paler, aside
from arguing that the CA did not commit any error in sustaining the CSC resolutions, also assails Atty. Arturo L. Tiu's
authority to file the petition and sign the verification and certification of non-forum shopping on behalf of the Commission
Chairman.

ISSUE
Whether or not the Commission Secretary (Atty. Tiu) can file the petition and sign the verification and certification
of non-forum shopping in behalf of the Commission Chairman

RULING
The petitioner in this case is the Commission on Appointments, a government entity created by the Constitution, and headed
by its Chairman. There was no need for the Chairman himself to sign the verification. Its representative, lawyer or any
person who personally knew the truth of the facts alleged in the petition could sign the verification.
With regard, however, to the certification of non-forum shopping, the established rule is that it must be executed by the
plaintiff or any of the principal parties and not by counsel. In this case, Atty. Tiu failed to show that he was specifically
authorized by the Chairman to sign the certification of non-forum shopping, much less file the petition in his behalf. There
is nothing on record to prove such authority. Atty. Tiu did not even bother to controvert Paler’s allegation of his lack of
authority. This renders the petition dismissible.