View full case

MARY LOUISE R. ANDERSON v. ENRIQUE HO

FACTS:

Petitioner Mary Louise R. Anderson filed a Complaint for Ejectment against respondent Enrique Ho before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Quezon City. Anderson alleged that Ho is in possession of her parcel of land through her mere tolerance. Ho, on the other hand, claimed that he possess the property as part of his compensation for services rendered to Anderson. The MeTC dismissed the case for lack of cause of action. Anderson appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which modified the MeTC's Decision by dismissing the complaint without prejudice. Anderson filed a motion for reconsideration, but the same was denied. She then sought to file a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals (CA) and was granted two extensions of time to file. However, when the petition was finally filed, the certification against forum shopping attached thereto was signed by her counsel without proper authority. The CA dismissed the petition on a technical ground, and subsequently denied Anderson's motion for reconsideration. Anderson now prays for the relaxation of the rules on certification against forum shopping and invokes the liberal application of the rules of procedure.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the certificate of non-forum shopping attached to the Petition for Review was validly signed by the petitioner's counsel on her behalf.

  2. Whether substantial compliance with the requirement of the certificate of non-forum shopping can cure a defect in its initial submission.

RULING:

  1. The certificate of non-forum shopping attached to the Petition for Review was invalid because it was signed by the petitioner's counsel without proper authorization.

  2. Substantial compliance cannot cure a defect in the certificate of non-forum shopping unless there are sufficient and justifiable grounds present to relax the rules on certification against forum shopping.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The certificate of non-forum shopping is a procedural requirement that is necessary and mandatory for procedural orderliness.

  • The certification against forum shopping must be executed by the party-pleader and not by the counsel, unless the party-pleader has reasonable or justifiable reasons for being unable to sign, in which case a Special Power of Attorney designating the counsel to sign on behalf of the party-pleader must be executed.

  • A defective certification, such as one that is signed by counsel without proper authority, constitutes a valid cause for the dismissal of the petition.

  • A defective certification is generally not curable by its subsequent submission or correction, unless there is substantial compliance based on special circumstances or compelling reasons.

  • The rules on forum shopping should not be interpreted with absolute literalness if it subverts its own objective of prohibiting and penalizing the evils of forum shopping. Substantial compliance may be accepted in certain cases, but only on sufficient and justifiable grounds.

  • Procedural rules are designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases and should be faithfully complied with. They should not be ignored to suit the convenience of a party.

  • While the Court may allow a relaxation in the application of procedural rules in certain instances, it requires a showing of justifiable reasons and at least a reasonable attempt at compliance.

  • Litigation must be conducted in accordance with the prescribed procedures to ensure an orderly and speedy administration of justice.

  • Party litigants and their counsels are advised to abide by procedural rules as they illuminate the path of the law and rationalize the pursuit of justice.