Bandillon vs La Filipina

DOCTRINE A person who has ample knowledge to swear to the veracity of the allegations has the power to sign the
certification alone.

FACTS Bandillon et al filed a complaint for violation of labor standards against La Filipina. Ultimately, La Filipina was held
liable. A writ of execution was issued against La Filipina to satisfy the claims of Bandillon.

La Filipina then contends that some employees did not sign the special power of attorney for the Labor Union president
Payda to represent them in the petition, thus the petition should be of no effect. Further, that some of the employees
were already deceased.

ISSUE WON the absence of signature of the workers should render the petition defective?

RULING NO

Payda, being the union president, has "ample knowledge to swear to the truth of the petition's allegations," being
himself a petitioner and the employees' union president who personally knows the story and facts of the case; and as for
the certification against forum shopping, Payda, as a co-employee of his co-petitioners, "shares a common interest and
invokes a common cause of action or defense" as the rest and, as their attorney-in-fact tasked to initiate the action, he
himself has the knowledge of whether or not he has initiated similar actions or proceedings in different courts or
agencies. Both already satisfy the guidelines' requirements on when a lone signature of a petitioner substantially
complies with the requirements for a valid verification and certification against forum shopping.

As for LFUC's allegation that the deceased employees were not properly substituted, this Court already had occasion to
rule that the formal substitution of a deceased worker is not necessary when his heir already had voluntarily appeared
and participated in the proceedings before the labor tribunals.59 The Court held further that the rule on substitution by
heirs is not a matter of jurisdiction, but a requirement of due process; it is only when there is a denial of due process, as
when the deceased is not represented by any legal representative or heir, that the court nullifies the trial proceedings
and the resulting judgment therein.60 In the case at bar, there is no such denial of. due process as the heirs of the six (6)
deceased workers are considered to have voluntarily appeared before this Court by signing the SPA authorizing the filing
of this petition.
Go Que Construction vs CA

DOCTRINE Photocopies of ID’s do not serve as identification evidence in submitting certification against forum shopping
in labor cases.

FACTS Private respondents sued Go Que Construction for illegal dismissal and for failure to pay their monetary benefits.

On the level of the CA, it was noted that the verification and certification of non-forum shopping contained a defective
jurat. Go Que then moved to dismiss the complaint, which the CA refused.

ISSUE WON the CA should have dismissed the petition on grounds of non-compliance.

RULING Yes, the CA should have dismissed the action.

n this case, it is undisputed that the Verification/Certification against Forum Shopping62 attached to the petition for
certiorari in CA-G.R. SP No. 109427 was not accompanied with a valid affidavit/properly certified under oath. This was
because the jurat thereof was defective in that it did not indicate the pertinent details regarding the affiants' (i.e.,
private respondents) competent evidence of identities.

Under Section 6, Rule II of A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC63 dated July 6, 2004, entitled the "2004 Rules on Notarial Practice"
(2004 Rules on Notarial Practice), & jurat refers to an act in which an individual on a single occasion:

(a) appears in person before the notary public and presents an instrument or document;

(b) is personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as
defined by these Rules;

(c) signs the instrument or document in the presence of the notary; and

(d) takes an oath or affirmation before the notary public as to such instrument or document.

Under Section 12, Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, "competent evidence of identity" as used in the
foregoing provision refers to the identification of an individual based on:

(a) at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the photograph and signature of the
individual, such as but not limited to, passport, driver's license, Professional Regulations Commission ID, National Bureau
of Investigation clearance, police clearance, postal ID, voter's ID, Barangay certification, Government Service and
Insurance System (GSIS) e-card, Social Security System (SSS) card, Philhealth card, senior citizen card, Overseas Workers
Welfare Administration (OWWA) ID, OFW ID, seaman's book, alien certificate of registration/immigrant certificate of
registration, government office ID, certification from the National Council for the Welfare of Disabled Persons (NCWDP),
Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) certification; or

(b) the oath or affirmation of one credible witness not privy to the instrument, document or transaction who is
personally known to the notary public and who personally knows the individual, or of two credible witnesses neither of
whom is privy to the instrument, document or transaction who each personally knows the individual and shows to the
notary public documentary identification.

Evidently, not being documents of identification issued by an official agency, the photocopies of the IDs64 of private
respondents Singson, Pasaqui, and Lominiqui from La Vista Association, Inc., R.O. Barra Builders & Electrical Services,
and St. Charbel Executive Village, respectively, do not constitute competent evidence of their identities under Section 12
(a), Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. In the same vein, their Joint-Affidavit65 identifying Andales and
assuring the CA that he was a party-litigant is not competent evidence of Andales's identity under Section 12 (b), Rule II
of the same rules, considering that they (i.e., Singson, Pasaqui, and Lominiqui) themselves are privy to the instrument,
i.e., the Verification/Certification of Non-Forum Shopping, in which Andales's participation is sought to be proven. To
note, it cannot be presumed that an affiant is personally known to the notary public; the jurat must contain a statement
to that effect.66 Tellingly, the notarial certificate of the Verification/Certification of Non-Forum Shopping67 attached to
private respondents' petition before the CA did not state whether they presented competent evidence of their
identities, or that they were personally known to the notary public, and, thus, runs afoul of the requirements of
verification and certification against forum shopping under Section 1,68 Rule 65, in relation to Section 3,69 Rule 46, of
the Rules of Court.
FONTANA VS VUKASINOVIC

DOCTRINE The requisites of litis pendentia are: (a) the identity of parties, or at.least such as representing the same
interests in both actions; (b) the identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same
facts; and (c) the identity of the two cases such that judgment in one, regardless of which party is successful, would
amount to res judicata in the other.

FACTS Vukasinovic was hired by Fontana Development Corporation (FDC). Vukasinovic received text messages from a
supposed informant that other employees of Fontana were receiving commissions.

Vukasinovic was then called by the management of Fontana, for allegedly concocting stories against her fellow
employees. She was subsequently dismissed. She filed a case with the NLRC, which affirmed the dismissal, and noted
that Vukasinovic had earlier filed a same case in a different branch of the NLRC.

Vukasinovic brings the issue to the CA. In defense, Fontana claims forum-shopping.

ISSUE WON there is forum-shopping?

RULING Yes, there is forum shopping. To quote the decision of the NLRC:

In this case, it is undisputed that respondent filed two labor complaints: first, NLRC Case No. RAB III-11-16967-10-P
entitled "Sascha Vukasinovic v. Fontana Development Corporation, Dennis Pak, Pastor Isaac, Cllris Clleng, Jesus Chua,
Michael Feliciano, Alma Erediano, Leilani Valiente, Man Clwi and Jaime Villareal' for illegal dismissal, illegal suspension,
regularization, non-payment of salaries, service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay, as well as actual, moral and
exemplary damages and attorney's fees, with prayer for reinstatement and full back wages; and second, NLRC Case No.
RAB III-09-18113-11 entitled "Sascha Vukasinovic v. National Labor Relations Commission, Labor Arbiter Reynaldo B.
Abdon, Jimei S. International, Ltd. (JSIL), Mr. Suk Man Choi in his capacity as Group Financial Comptroller of JSIL, Chris
Cheng in his capacity as Deputy Group Financial Comptroller of JSIL", for constructive (illegal) dismissal, regularization,
non-payment of salaries, premium pay for holiday and rest days, service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay, as well as
damages and attorney's fees and other monetary claims including bonuses and travel expenses (repatriation expenses).
It is also undisputed that the causes of action (illegal dismissal and constructive dismissal) in the respective complaints in
the two (2) cases stemmed from the adverse decision in the administrative case filed against respondent that resulted
to his dismissal from employment.

In Jesse Yap v. Court of Appeals, it was held:

xxxx

The requisites of litis pendentia are: (a) the identity of parties, or at.least such as representing the same interests in both
actions; (b) the identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) the
identity of the two cases such that judgment in one, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res
judicata in the other.

In effect, with the finding of forum shopping, both actions must be dismissed.
RE: REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE RTC, BRANCH 60, BARILI, CEBU

A.M. No. 04-7-374-RTC

DOCTRINE In case of variance of address on the verification of pleadings, the judge must ascertain the irregularities.

FACTS A special audit as to the performance of the judges in RTC Branch 60 of Cebu was conducted. Among the
irregularities in handling of the cases was:

In CEB-BAR-373, entitled Ora v. Ora, the given address of the petitioner as alleged in the body of the petition is
"Poblacion, Dumanjug, Cebu." However, his address as indicated in the verification of the petition is "Osmeña Blvd.,
Cebu City." The variance of the address of the petitioner as appearing in the body of the petition and in the verification
should have been looked into by Judge Suerte to determine which of the two is correct. He apparently did not.

ISSUE WON the judge may be held liable for not checking the discrepancy of address?

RULING The given address of the petitioner as alleged in the body of the petition is "Poblacion, Dumanjug, Cebu."
However, his address as indicated in the verification of the petition is "Osmeña Blvd., Cebu City." The variance of the
address of the petitioner as appearing in the body of the petition and in the verification should have been looked into by
respondent Judge Suerte to determine which of the two is correct.

Orix vs Cardeline

DOCTRINE Having the same parties but different causes of action means that there is no litis pendentia.

FACTS Cardline leased four machines from Orix. Failing to pay rent, Orix demanded payment and filed an action for
replevin.

Cardline was declared in default for filing an answer. In the subsequent proceedings, Cardline raised that it was
improper to declare it in default. A execution on the repleving was issued as well. Cardline then filed three actions: one
assailing their liability for the unpaid rent, another for annulment of the judgment, and another for prohibition to
prevent the execution. Orix contends that Cardline committed forum shopping.

ISSUE WON forum shopping was committed?

RULING NO, there is no forum-shopping.

The two cases filed collectively by the respondents are similar only in that they involve the same parties. The cases,
however, involve different causes of actions. The petition for review on certiorari was filed to review the merits of the
RTC's judgment. On the other hand, the petition for prohibition respects the finality of the RTC's judgment on the merits
but interprets the dispositive portion in a way that would render the execution unnecessary. Thus, the elements of
forum shopping are not present in the two cases.

Moreover, the resort to a remedy under Rule 65 is expressly allowed by the Rules of Court. Section 1, Rule 41 of the
Rules of Court provides that an aggrieved party may file the appropriate civil action under Rule 65 to challenge an order
of execution. Accordingly, the respondents filed their petition for prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

With respect to Ng Beng Sheng's petition for annulment of judgment, the CA has already ruled that the filing of the
petition constituted forum shopping, specifically due to the jurisdictional issue raised. The petition for prohibition,
however, involves a different cause of action. Thus, there is no forum shopping.

To recap, first, the CA erred in preventing the execution of the RTC's judgment. Nothing in the lease agreements'
provisions supports the CA's ruling that the market value of the returned machines and the guaranty deposit shall be
deducted from Cardline' s unpaid rent. Second, the individual respondents are solidarily liable for Cardline's obligations
and are not entitled to the benefit of excussion. Finally, the respondents did not commit forum shopping by filing the
petition for prohibition.