View full case

ART FUENTEBELLA v. DARLICA CASTRO

FACTS:

The case involves a dispute between respondent Darlica Castro and petitioner Rolling Hills Memorial Park, Inc. regarding the interment services provided for her deceased husband. After a series of events during the burial, Castro filed a complaint for damages against the corporation and its Park-in-Charge with the MTCC of Bacolod City. The petitioners filed a motion to dismiss, but Castro later filed a motion to withdraw the complaint, which the MTCC granted. Castro subsequently filed a similar complaint with the RTC of Negros Occidental, accompanied by a Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping. The petitioners filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the certification was false. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss and the petitioners' motion for reconsideration, stating that the certification should not be interpreted too literally. The petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals, but their petition was dismissed for lack of showing that the person who signed the verification and certification was authorized to do so. The Court of Appeals also denied the petitioners' motion for reconsideration. The case is now before the Supreme Court on the grounds of erroneous dismissal by the Court of Appeals and alleged abuse of discretion by the trial court.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether a board resolution or secretary's certificate is necessary to show proof that the one signing the petition or the verification and certification against forum shopping has been duly authorized by petitioner company.

  2. Whether the one signing the petition on behalf of multiple petitioners need to append his authority to sign on behalf of the other petitioners.

  3. Whether or not Ocampo, as the president of PET PLANS, should have signed the verification and certificate of non-forum shopping.

  4. Whether or not the failure of respondent to disclose a similar case earlier filed constitutes false certification.

RULING:

  1. The one signing the verification and certification against forum shopping on behalf of the principal party or other petitioners must have the authority to do so. Failure to comply with this requirement may result in the dismissal of the case without prejudice. The reason for this requirement is that the principal party has actual knowledge whether a petition has previously been filed involving the same case or substantially the same issues. If the principal party cannot sign the petition, the one signing on his behalf must have been duly authorized. This requirement applies to both natural and juridical persons.

  2. In the case of multiple petitioners, it is insufficient for only one petitioner to execute the certification against forum shopping without showing proper authorization from the others. The certification requires personal knowledge and cannot be presumed that the signatory knew that his co-petitioners had the same or similar actions filed or pending. Therefore, a certification signed without the proper authorization is defective and can be a valid cause for the dismissal of the petition.

  3. The Court held that Ocampo, as the president of PET PLANS, should have signed the verification and certificate of non-forum shopping since he was made jointly and solidarily liable with PET PLANS by the Labor Arbiter. The Court stated that the reason for requiring the parties themselves to sign the certificate of non-forum shopping is that they know better than anyone else whether a separate case has been filed or pending which involves substantially the same issues. It was ruled that failure to sign the certification constitutes a defect in the petition and is a ground for dismissing the same.

  4. The Court ruled that the omission in the certificate of non-forum shopping about the earlier filed case does not merit the dismissal and nullification of the entire proceedings, considering that the evils sought to be prevented by the certificate are not present. The Court held that the submission of a false certification shall constitute indirect contempt of court, without prejudice to the corresponding administrative and criminal sanctions.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The petitioner or principal party must execute the certification against forum shopping.

  • The one signing the certification on behalf of the principal party or other petitioners must have the authority to do so.

  • The certification requirement applies to both natural and juridical persons.

  • In the case of multiple petitioners, each petitioner must sign the certification or show proper authorization from the others.

  • Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court requires the petitioner, whether a natural or juridical person, to sign the certificate of non-forum shopping.

  • Failure to personally sign the certification in a petition is a ground for dismissing the same, unless there is justifiable cause for the failure and the dismissal would seriously impair the orderly administration of justice.

  • An omission in the certificate of non-forum shopping about an event that does not constitute res judicata and litis pendentia is not fatal to the proceedings.