FACTS:

The Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA) filed a petition seeking the annulment of a decision rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The Court of Appeals (CA) initially dismissed the petition due to a technicality in the verification process. The verification was only signed by one of the principal parties, without a Board Resolution conferring authority. However, the BCDA filed a motion for reconsideration, attaching an affidavit to address the verification issue. The CA granted the motion and reinstated the petition, finding no reason to deny the request despite the absence of a formal Board Resolution. The respondent filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the BCDA failed to comply with the rules on verification. The CA denied the motion, prompting the respondent to elevate the case to the Supreme Court for review.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the verification requirement has been complied with despite the fact that not all the petitioners signed the petition for review and the verification.

2. Whether the certification against forum shopping must be signed by all the plaintiffs or petitioners.

3. Whether the certification against forum shopping must be signed by all the plaintiffs or petitioners in a case.

4. Whether the certification against forum shopping must be executed by the party-pleader, not by his counsel.

5. Whether the question raised by the petitioners is a question of law or a question of fact.

6. Whether the appointments of the petitioners have become moot and academic.

7. Whether the case should be ruled on its merits despite being moot and academic.

8. Whether there is a distinction between Sections 474(b)(4) and 344 of the Local Government Code of 1991.

9. Whether Section 344 of the Local Government Code of 1991 applies when there is no obligation to pay on the part of the local government unit.

10. Whether the certification of availability of funds for the payment of wages and salaries of appointees to positions in the plantilla of the local government unit is the ministerial duty of the city treasurer or the city accountant.

RULING:

1. The Court held that the verification requirement has been substantially complied with. It cited previous cases where the Court allowed the signature of only one or two principal parties despite the absence of a board resolution or the non-signing of the other petitioners. The Court stated that as long as the signatories are unquestionably real parties-in-interest and have sufficient knowledge and belief to swear to the truth of the allegations in the petition, the verification should be deemed valid.

2. The Court ruled that the certification against forum shopping must be signed by all the plaintiffs or petitioners. However, it also recognized that there are exceptions to this rule. The non-signing petitioners may be dropped as parties to the case if they cannot be contacted or are no longer interested in pursuing the case. The Court also mentioned that there may be instances where there is reasonable cause for the failure to personally sign the certification, and in such cases, the outright dismissal of the petition would defeat the administration of justice.

3. The certification against forum shopping must be signed by all the plaintiffs or petitioners in a case; however, under certain circumstances wherein all the plaintiffs or petitioners share a common interest and invoke a common cause of action or defense, the signature of only one of them substantially complies with the rule.

4. The certification against forum shopping must be executed by the party-pleader, not by his counsel. However, if the party-pleader is unable to sign due to reasonable or justifiable reasons, he must execute a Special Power of Attorney designating his counsel to sign on his behalf.

5. The question raised by the petitioners is a question of law as it concerns the correct application of law or jurisprudence to a certain set of facts, rather than a question of fact which involves the truth or falsehood of facts and requires the examination of evidence.

6. The appointments of the petitioners have become moot and academic due to their final disapproval by the Civil Service Commission (CSC).

7. The Court decided to rule on the merits of the case despite its mootness and academic status in order to settle the issue once and for all, given that it is capable of repetition or susceptible of recurrence.

8. There are distinctions between Sections 474(b)(4) and 344 of the Local Government Code of 1991, including the different requirements for certification, the involvement of an appropriation, the purpose of the certification, and the actual payment involved.

9. Section 344 of the Local Government Code of 1991 applies only when there is already an obligation to pay on the part of the local government unit. Thus, the certification of availability of funds for the payment of wages and salaries of appointees is not required if there is no performance of services or expenses incurred yet.

10. The certification of availability of funds for the payment of wages and salaries of appointees is the ministerial duty of the city accountant, as provided under Section 474(b)(4) of the Local Government Code of 1991.

PRINCIPLES:

• Non-compliance with or a defect in the verification does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective. The court may order its submission or correction or act on the pleading if the attending circumstances are such that strict compliance with the rule may be dispensed with in order to serve the ends of justice.

• Verification is deemed substantially complied with when someone with ample knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations signs the verification, and when the allegations have been made in good faith or are true and correct.

• Non-compliance with or a defect in the certification against forum shopping is generally not curable by subsequent submission or correction, unless there are "special circumstances or compelling reasons."

• The certification against forum shopping must be signed by all plaintiffs or petitioners, but there may be exceptions if the non-signing petitioners cannot be contacted or are no longer interested in the case.

• The certification against forum shopping must be signed by all the plaintiffs or petitioners in a case, unless all of them share a common interest and invoke a common cause of action or defense.

• The certification against forum shopping must be executed by the party-pleader, not by his counsel, unless the party-pleader is unable to sign and executes a Special Power of Attorney designating his counsel to sign.

• A question of law exists when the doubt or controversy concerns the correct application of law or jurisprudence to a certain set of facts, while a question of fact exists when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of facts or when the query invites calibration of the evidence. When there is no dispute as to fact, the question of whether the conclusion drawn therefrom is correct is a question of law.

• A case becomes moot and academic when there is no more justiciable controversy or when the issues presented are no longer alive.

• The Court may still rule on the merits of a case even if it has become moot and academic if the issue raised is one capable of repetition or susceptible of recurrence.

• Different provisions of a law may have distinct requirements, purposes, and applications, and these distinctions must be considered in their interpretation and application.

• Vouchers are issued when services have been performed or expenses incurred, implying the existence of an instrument that shows the authority or account for a particular payment.

• Section 344 of the Local Government Code of 1991 applies when there is an obligation to pay on the part of the local government unit.

• The certification of availability of funds for the payment of wages and salaries is the ministerial duty of the city accountant under Section 474(b)(4) of the Local Government Code of 1991.