The Supreme Court ruled that a verification in a pleading must explicitly state that the allegations are either based on personal knowledge or authentic records. Failing to meet this strict verification standard, as required by the amended Section 4 of Rule 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, will render the pleading treated as unsigned. Although a deficiency in the verification can be remedied at the court’s discretion, the Court emphasizes the necessity of complying with procedural rules while seeking substantive justice.
Behind the Affidavit: Does ‘Knowledge and Belief’ Suffice in a Petition for Certiorari?
This case arose from a dispute between Negros Oriental Planters Association, Inc. (NOPA) and Aniceto Manojo Campos over a Molasses Sales Agreement. Campos filed a complaint for breach of contract against NOPA, alleging partial delivery of molasses despite full payment. NOPA filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that Campos had underpaid the filing fee. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied NOPA’s motion, leading NOPA to file a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), assailing the RTC Orders. The Court of Appeals outrightly dismissed the Petition for Certiorari due to procedural infirmities, including the failure of NOPA to state in its Verification that the allegations in the petition are based on authentic records, in violation of Section 4, Rule 7, of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
The main issue before the Supreme Court was whether the CA committed a reversible error in ruling that there was no substantial compliance with the procedural requirements for verification and attachment of necessary documents. NOPA argued that its original verification, which stated that the allegations were true and correct to the best of its knowledge and belief, constituted substantial compliance. They cited older cases to support their view. The Supreme Court noted that NOPA had mistakenly relied on jurisprudence prior to the amendment of Section 4 of Rule 7 by A.M. No. 00-2-10, which introduced stricter requirements for verification. The Court highlighted the difference between the old and the amended rules, noting that the latter demands a specific claim of either personal knowledge or reliance on authentic records.
While non-compliance with the verification requirement does not automatically lead to dismissal, as the court has the discretion to allow the deficiency to be remedied, the CA refused to allow the said remedy in this instance. The Supreme Court addressed the question of whether an appellate court can reverse a lower court’s exercise of discretion, citing Lino Luna v. Arcenas, noting that while generally, discretionary rulings are not reviewed on appeal, exceptions exist when there is grave abuse of discretion or adverse effect on a litigant’s substantial rights. In this instance, the court stated that since the alleged deficiency in docket fees paid by Campos, would not benefit NOPA, there was no prejudice to any substantive rights. What’s more the Court said, is that NOPA, in asking for the dismissal based on a technicality, was seeking to avoid having a decision on the merits.
Addressing the issue of docket fees, the Court clarified the application of Manchester Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals and Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. (SIOL) v. Asuncion. It emphasized that the Sun ruling, which allows payment of deficient docket fees within a reasonable time, applies when there is no deliberate intent to defraud the court. The Court found that Campos did not deliberately intend to defraud the court, since Campos had filed an amount as docket fee, and any omitted fees was only 5.2% of the total, so the motion to dismiss should have been denied.
The ruling underscores the necessity of precise compliance with verification requirements in pleadings, especially in petitions for certiorari, in Philippine legal practice. Litigants and legal practitioners should meticulously ensure that verifications explicitly state whether the allegations are based on personal knowledge or authentic records to avoid potential procedural pitfalls. The Court’s application of discretion highlights a balancing act between upholding procedural rules and ensuring substantive justice. This underscores the importance of proper procedure, especially in instances where parties hope to use these to avoid judgement of cases based on their merit.
FAQs
| What is the key ruling of this case? | The Supreme Court affirmed that a verification must state the allegations are based on either personal knowledge or authentic records. Failure to do so will render the pleading as unsigned, although correctable at the court’s discretion. |
| What is a Petition for Certiorari? | A Petition for Certiorari is a legal remedy used to question the decision of a lower court or tribunal, alleging grave abuse of discretion. It is filed with a higher court, seeking to annul or modify the lower court’s decision. |
| What does verification mean in legal terms? | In legal terms, verification is a sworn statement confirming the truth and correctness of the allegations in a pleading. It is a formal requirement intended to ensure good faith and veracity in the claims being made. |
| What happens if a pleading lacks proper verification? | According to the Rules of Court, a pleading lacking proper verification shall be treated as an unsigned pleading. This means it produces no legal effect, unless the court allows the deficiency to be remedied. |
| Can a court reverse its decision regarding the exercise of discretion? | The court can reverse the exercise of discretion of a lower court when there is grave abuse of discretion or adverse effect on the substantial rights of a litigant. This means the decision was made without reasonable basis or violated the law. |
| What is the difference between Manchester and Sun Insurance doctrine on docket fees? | The Manchester doctrine states that a court acquires jurisdiction only upon payment of the prescribed docket fee. The Sun Insurance doctrine provides an exception, allowing payment of deficient fees within a reasonable period, provided there is no intent to defraud the court. |
| What constitutes a ‘deliberate intent to defraud’ the court? | Deliberate intent to defraud the court means intentionally deceiving the court to avoid paying the correct docket fees. This is evidenced by actions such as omitting damages claimed or understating the amount to be paid. |
| Why was NOPA’s Petition for Certiorari dismissed? | NOPA’s Petition for Certiorari was initially dismissed by the Court of Appeals due to procedural deficiencies, specifically the improper verification. The Supreme Court affirmed this dismissal, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the CA and further validating the dismissal based on a finding that there had been no intention to defraud the court regarding the payment of the necessary fees. |
This ruling serves as a clear reminder to legal practitioners to adhere strictly to procedural rules, particularly regarding the verification of pleadings. While substantial justice is a paramount consideration, compliance with procedural requirements ensures fairness and order in the legal process.
For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.
Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Negros Oriental Planters Association, Inc. (NOPA) v. Hon. Presiding Judge, G.R. No. 179878, December 24, 2008
Leave a Reply