Formoso vs PNB (June 1, 2011) Facts: The petition for certiorari filed with the CA stated the following

names as petitioners: Nellie Panelo Vda. De Formoso, Ma. Theresa Formoso-Pescador, oger Formoso, Mar! "ane Formoso, #ernard Formoso, #en$amin Formoso, and Primiti%o Malca&a. Admittedl!, among the se%en '() petitioners mentioned, onl! Malca&a signed the %erification and certification of non-for*m shopping in the s*&$ect petition. There was no proof that Malca&a was a*thori+ed &! his co-petitioners to sign for them. There was no special power of attorne! shown &! the Formosos a*thori+ing Malca&a as their attorne!-in-fact in filing a petition for re%iew on certiorari. Neither co*ld the petitioners gi%e at least a reasona&le e,planation as to wh! onl! he signed the %erification and certification of non-for*m shopping. -n Athena Comp*ters, -nc. and "oselito . "imene+ %. .esn* A. e!es, the Co*rt e,plained that: The %erification of the petition and certification on non-for*m shopping &efore the Co*rt of Appeals were signed onl! &! "imene+. There is no showing that he was a*thori+ed to sign the same &! Athena, his co-petitioner. /ection 0, *le ( of the *les states that a pleading is %erified &! an affida%it that the affiant has read the pleading and that the allegations therein are tr*e and correct of his 1nowledge and &elief. Conse2*entl!, the %erification sho*ld ha%e &een signed not onl! &! "imene+ &*t also &! Athena3s d*l! a*thori+ed representati%e. -n Docena %. 4apes*ra, we r*led that the certificate of non-for*m shopping sho*ld &e signed &! all the petitioners or plaintiffs in a case, and that the signing &! onl! one of them is ins*fficient. The attestation on non-for*m shopping re2*ires personal 1nowledge &! the part! e,ec*ting the same, and the lone signing petitioner cannot &e pres*med to ha%e personal 1nowledge of the filing or non-filing &! his co-petitioners of an! action or claim the same as similar to the c*rrent petition. The certification against for*m shopping in CA-5. . /P No. (6670 is fatall! defecti%e, not ha%ing &een d*l! signed &! &oth petitioners and th*s warrants the dismissal of the petition for certiorari. .e ha%e consistentl! held that the certification against for*m shopping m*st &e signed &! the principal parties. .ith respect to a corporation, the certification against for*m shopping ma! &e signed for and on its &ehalf, &! a specificall! a*thori+ed law!er who has personal 1nowledge of the facts re2*ired to &e disclosed in s*ch doc*ment. .hile the *les of Co*rt ma! &e rela,ed for pers*asi%e and weight! reasons to relie%e a litigant from an in$*stice commens*rate with his fail*re to compl! with the prescri&ed

proced*res, ne%ertheless the! m*st &e faithf*ll! followed. -n the instant case, petitioners ha%e not shown an! reason which $*stifies rela,ation of the *les. .e ha%e held that proced*ral r*les are not to &e &elittled or dismissed simpl! &eca*se their nono&ser%ance ma! ha%e pre$*diced a part!3s s*&stanti%e rights. 4i1e all r*les, the! are re2*ired to &e followed e,cept for the most pers*asi%e of reasons when the! ma! &e rela,ed. Not one of these pers*asi%e reasons is present here. -n fine, we hold that the Co*rt of Appeals did not err in dismissing the petition for certiorari in %iew of the proced*ral lapses committed &! petitioners.899: 8;mphases s*pplied: F*rthermore, the petitioners arg*e that the CA sho*ld not ha%e dismissed the whole petition &*t sho*ld ha%e gi%en it d*e co*rse insofar as Malca&a is concerned &eca*se he signed the certification.

Issue: .<N the CA sho*ld ha%e &een li&eral in the application of the *les with respect to the petitioners &eca*se the! ha%e a meritorio*s case against PN#= Ruling: The Co*rt, howe%er, is not pers*aded. The petitioners were gi%en a chance &! the CA to compl! with the *les when the! filed their motion for reconsideration, &*t the! ref*sed to do so. Despite the opport*nit! gi%en to them to ma1e all of them sign the %erification and certification of non-for*m shopping, the! still failed to compl!. Th*s, the CA was constrained to den! their motion and affirm the earlier resol*tion.896: -ndeed, li&eralit! and lenienc! were accorded in some cases.89>: -n these cases, howe%er, those who did not sign were relati%es of the lone signator!, so *nli1e in this case, where Malca&a is not a relati%e who is similarl! sit*ated with the other petitioners and who cannot spea1 for them. -n the case of ?eirs of Domingo ?ernande+, /r. %. Plaridel Mingoa, /r.,890: it was written: -n the instant case, petitioners share a common interest and defense inasm*ch as the! collecti%el! claim a right not to &e dispossessed of the s*&$ect lot &! %irt*e of their and their deceased parents3 constr*ction of a famil! home and occ*pation thereof for more than 9@ !ears. The commonalit! of their stance to defend their alleged right o%er the contro%erted lot th*s ga%e petitioners ,,, a*thorit! to inform the Co*rt of Appeals in &ehalf of the other petitioners that the! ha%e not commenced an! action or claim in%ol%ing the same iss*es in another co*rt or tri&*nal, and that there is no other pending action or claim in another co*rt or tri&*nal in%ol%ing the same iss*es.

?ere, all the petitioners are immediate relati%eswho share a common interest in the land so*ght to &e recon%e!ed and a common ca*se of action raising the same arg*ments in s*pport thereof. There was s*fficient &asis, therefore, for Domingo ?ernande+, "r. to spea1 for and in &ehalf of his co-petitioners when he certified that the! had not filed an! action or claim in another co*rt or tri&*nal in%ol%ing the same iss*es. Th*s, the VerificationACertification that ?ernande+, "r. e,ec*ted constit*tes s*&stantial compliance *nder the *les. 8;mphasis s*pplied: The same lenienc! was accorded to the petitioner in the case of <ldarico /. Tra%eno %. #o&ongon #anana 5rowers M*lti-P*rpose Cooperati%e,89B: where it was stated: The same lenienc! was applied &! the Co*rt in Ca%ile %. ?eirs of Ca%ile, &eca*se the lone petitioner who e,ec*ted the certification of non-for*m shopping was a relati%e and co-owner of the other petitioners with whom he shares a common interest. , , ,89C: Considering the a&o%e circ*mstances, the Co*rt does not see an! similarit! at all in the case at &ench to compel itself to rela, the re2*irement of strict compliance with the r*le regarding the certification against for*m shopping. , , ,.D