Sy Chin vs Court Of Appeals

GR No. 163707 November 23, 2000

Topic: Counsel cannot sign certification against forum shopping; exception
Facts:

 The case stemmed from a petition for the dissolution and liquidation of the partnership filed by the
petitioners with the SEC. The issue relates to how the partnership’s properties and profits be divided
among the partners and their successors.
 The 5 Tang brothers formed a partnership under the name Tang Chin Heng & Company, the partnership
had a term of 25 years
 After the death of the 3 brothers, conflict arose from their heirs and surviving partners because of the
company’s failure to render an accounting and non-distribution of profits, in order to settle their
differences, the parties agreed to refer the matter to the Federation of Filipino Chinese Chamber of
Commerce, from which an agreement to accept as final and irrevocable whatever the later federation
may deemed fair, just and equitable.
 The petitioner’s filed a petition for the dissolution and liquidation of the partnership with the SEC with a
prayer to render and accounting and that a receiver be appointed in order to administer, manage and
dispose the partnership’s asset and take charge in the distribution of the profit.
 SEC rendered a decision affirming the partnership’s properties which shall be distributed to the
partners/heirs in proportion to their contribution in accordance to the articles of the partnership.
 The petitioner’s moved for the partial reconsideration of the decision, averring that the properties should
be divided equally among the partners or their heirs, the motion was denied by the hearing officer.
 A motion for execution was filed by the private respondents but an opposition was filed by the petitioner
asserting that there was a need to check/investigate the information that some of the properties were
already adjudicated to one of the brother’s heirs in an intestate proceeding before the CFI, but the
opposition was denied, thus petitioner went to the Commission (SEC) en banc, but was opposed by the
respondent asserting that the SEC no longer has jurisdiction over the case for the decision has already
become final and executor, nevertheless the SEC took cognizance of the case and resolved to remand the
case to the department of origin for proper action.
 Petition for Certiorari was filed with the CA, CA ruled that the SEC acted in excess of its jurisdiction and
annulled the decision of the later.

Issue: W/N the respondent Court of Appeal erred when it failed to dismiss and/or deny due course to the Petition
of the respondent for certiorari for failure to comply with the requirement of non-forum shopping?

Ruling: No ( Petition was denied)

 It is true that the petition may have been flawed as the certificate of non-forum shopping was signed only
by the counsel and not by the party, suffice it to say that this procedural lapse maybe overlooked in the
interest of substantial justice.
 Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the court did not find any revisable error with the
respondent court’s evaluation that there is a prima facie merit in the petition.