Vde De Formoso V PNB GR 154704 June 1, 2011 J Mendoza

Facts: On October 14, 1989, Nellie Panelo Vda. De Formoso (Nellie) and her children executed a special power of
attorney in favor of Primitivo Malcaba authorizing him, among others, to secure all papers and documents
including the owner's copies of the titles of real properties pertaining to the loan with real estate mortgage
originally secured by Nellie and her late husband, Benjamin S. Formoso, from PNB Vigan Branch on September 4,
1980.
On April 20, 1990, the Formosos sold the subject mortgaged real properties to Malcaba through a Deed of
Absolute Sale. Subsequently, on March 22, 1994, Malcaba and his lawyer went to PNB to fully pay the loan
obligation including interests in the amount of P2,461,024.74.
PNB, however, allegedly refused to accept Malcaba's tender of payment and to release the mortgage or
surrender the titles of the subject mortgaged real properties.
On March 24, 1994, the petitioners filed a Complaint for Specific Performance against PNB before RTC of Vigan,
Ilocos Sur praying, among others, that PNB be ordered to accept the amount of P2,461,024.74 as full settlement
of the loan obligation of the Formosos. EACIaT
After an exchange of several pleadings, the RTC finally rendered its decision on October 27, 1999 favoring the
petitioners. The petitioners' prayer for exemplary or corrective damages, attorney's fees, and annual interest
and daily interest, however, were denied for lack of evidence.
PNB filed MR but it was denied for failure to comply with Rule 15, Section 5 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
PNB then filed a Notice of Appeal but it was dismissed for being filed out of time.
The petitioners received their copy of the decision on November 26, 1999, and on January 25, 2001, they filed
their Petition for Relief from Judgment questioning the RTC decision that there was no testimonial evidence
presented to warrant the award for moral and exemplary damages. They reasoned out that they could not then
file a motion for reconsideration because they could not get hold of a copy of the transcripts of stenographic
notes. In its August 6, 2001 Order, the RTC denied the petition for lack of merit. Petitioners’ MR was denied by
the RTC in its Omnibus Order of September 26, 2001. On appeal, CA dismissed the petition. Aggrieved, after the
denial of their MR petitioners filed this petition for review.

ISSUE: W/N CA ERRED IN RULING THAT ALL THE PETITIONERS MUST SIGN THE VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION
OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING IN A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI WHEREIN ONLY QUESTIONS OF LAW ARE INVOLVED.||

HELD: NO. Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provide:
SEC. 4. Verification. — Except when otherwise specifically required by law or rule, pleadings
need not be under oath, verified or accompanied by affidavit.
A pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant has read the pleadings and that the
allegations therein are true and correct of his personal knowledge or based on authentic
records.
A pleading required to be verified which contains a verification based on "information and
belief" or upon "knowledge, information and belief" or lacks a proper verification, shall be
treated as an unsigned pleading.
SEC. 5. Certification against forum shopping. — The plaintiff or principal party shall certify
under oath in the complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a
sworn certification annexed thereto and simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he has not
theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court,
tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his knowledge, no such other action or
claim is pending therein; (b) if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete
statement of the present status thereof; and (c) if he should thereafter learn that the same
 or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall report that fact within five (5)
days therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been
filed.
Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be curable by mere amendment
of the complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of the case
without prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon motion and after hearing. The
submission of a false certification or non-compliance with any of the undertakings therein
shall constitute indirect contempt of court, without prejudice to the corresponding
administrative and criminal actions. If the acts of the party or his counsel clearly constitute
willful and deliberate forum shopping, the same shall be ground for summary dismissal with
prejudice and shall constitute direct contempt, as well as a cause for administrative
sanctions. . . . .
The petition for certiorari filed with the CA stated the following names as petitioners: Nellie Panelo Vda. De
Formoso, Ma. Theresa Formoso-Pescador, Roger Formoso, Mary Jane Formoso, Bernard Formoso, Benjamin
Formoso, and Primitivo Malcaba.
Admittedly, among the seven (7) petitioners mentioned, only Malcaba signed the verification and certification of
non-forum shopping in the subject petition. There was no proof that Malcaba was authorized by his co-
petitioners to sign for them. There was no special power of attorney shown by the Formosos authorizing
Malcaba as their attorney-in-fact in filing a petition for review on certiorari. Neither could the petitioners give at
least a reasonable explanation as to why only he signed the verification and certification of non-forum shopping.
While the Rules of Court may be relaxed for persuasive and weighty reasons to relieve a litigant from an
injustice commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedures, nevertheless they
must be faithfully followed. In the instant case, petitioners have not shown any reason which justifies
relaxation of the Rules. We have held that procedural rules are not to be belittled or dismissed simply
because their non-observance may have prejudiced a party's substantive rights. Like all rules, they are
required to be followed except for the most persuasive of reasons when they may be relaxed. Not one
of these persuasive reasons is present here.
In fine, we hold that the Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing the petition for certiorari in view of
the procedural lapses committed by petitioners.