In the case of Barangay Tongonan v. Hon. Apolinario M. Buaya, et al., the Supreme Court ruled that the belated submission of a Barangay Council Resolution and a Certification and Verification of Non-Forum Shopping constitutes substantial compliance with procedural requirements. This decision emphasizes that strict adherence to procedural rules should not override the pursuit of substantive justice, especially when there is a clear attempt to rectify initial defects.

Boundary Disputes and Belated Filings: Will Technicalities Trump Justice?

This case arose from a boundary dispute between Ormoc City and the Municipality of Kananga, which led to an Amicable Settlement. Barangay Tongonan, feeling aggrieved by the settlement, sought to annul it, claiming it illegally relinquished the barangay’s patrimony. The Court of Appeals (CA) initially dismissed the barangay’s petition due to procedural defects, specifically concerning the verification and certification against non-forum shopping. The main issue before the Supreme Court was whether the identified procedural infirmities, particularly the late submission of required documents, merited the dismissal of the barangay’s amended petition.

The CA dismissed the petition due to the lack of the original Barangay Council Resolution authorizing the Punong Barangay to sign the Verification and Certification Against Non-Forum Shopping, insufficient proof of identity of the representative, and the fact that the Verification and Certification were subscribed before an Assistant Provincial Prosecutor. The Supreme Court, however, took a more lenient view, emphasizing that the strict interpretation of procedural requirements should not prevail when there has been substantial compliance with the rules.

The Court acknowledged the importance of submitting a verified petition and a sworn certification of non-forum shopping, as required under Rule 47, Section 4. However, it also recognized that a strict application of these procedural rules would not serve the ends of justice in this particular case. The Court noted that the CA itself had initially reinstated the amended petition, only to later dismiss it based on the same procedural defects.

The petitioner had submitted a certified true copy of the Barangay Resolution authorizing the Punong Barangay to file the amended petition. However, the authorization to execute the Certification and Verification of Non-forum shopping was lacking. The Court has consistently held that when a petitioner is a juridical person, the certification must be executed by a natural person duly authorized by the corporate board or authorized officers. Failure to provide proof of the signatory’s authority generally warrants dismissal of the petition. Shipside Incorporated v. Court of Appeals, 404 Phil. 981-995 (2001).

To address this defect, the petitioner submitted a new Barangay Council Resolution issued in favor of the succeeding Punong Barangay, along with a new Certification and Verification of Non-forum Shopping. The Supreme Court considered whether this belated submission cured the defect.

The Supreme Court referred to established guidelines regarding non-compliance with verification and certification requirements, stating that defects in verification are not necessarily fatal and can be corrected. Regarding certification against forum shopping, the Court noted that while non-compliance is generally not curable, exceptions exist when there is “substantial compliance” or “special circumstances or compelling reasons.” Fernandez v. Villegas, 741 Phil. 689, 697-698 (2014).

The Supreme Court emphasized the concept of substantial compliance, citing several cases where the belated filing of a certification was deemed sufficient. In Mediserv, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, et al., 631 Phil. 282 (2010), the Court held that the failure to submit proof of the representative’s authority to sign the verification/certification was rectified when the required document was subsequently submitted. Similarly, in Uy v. Land Bank of the Philippines, 391 Phil. 303 (2000), the Court reinstated a petition based on substantial compliance, even though the verification and certification were submitted after the initial dismissal.

In the present case, the petitioner’s submission of the original Barangay Council Resolution authorizing the succeeding Punong Barangay was considered substantial compliance. The Court acknowledged that the change in representation was due to supervening elections during the pendency of the amended petition. Ultimately, the Court prioritized the resolution of the substantive issue concerning the boundary dispute over adherence to procedural technicalities.

The Court in Fernandez v. Villegas underscored that rules on verification and forum shopping are designed to facilitate justice and should not be interpreted so strictly as to defeat their purpose, and that substantial compliance is permissible under justifiable circumstances. Fernandez v. Villegas, 741 Phil. 689, 700 (2014).

Thus, the Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision, and reinstated the case for proper disposition.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the belated submission of a Barangay Council Resolution and a Certification and Verification of Non-Forum Shopping constituted substantial compliance, sufficient to overcome procedural defects.
Why did the Court of Appeals dismiss the petition initially?	The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition due to the lack of the original Barangay Council Resolution authorizing the Punong Barangay to sign the verification, insufficient proof of identity, and improper subscription of the documents.
What is “substantial compliance” in this context?	Substantial compliance means that while there may be deviations from the strict letter of the law, the essential requirements have been met, and the purpose of the law has been satisfied.
When is belated filing of a certification allowed?	Belated filing of a certification is allowed when there is a need to relax the rules on the ground of “substantial compliance” or the presence of “special circumstances or compelling reasons.”
What is the role of the Punong Barangay in this case?	The Punong Barangay is the chief executive of the barangay, and in this case, the authorized representative of the barangay in legal proceedings.
What is a Certification against Non-Forum Shopping?	A Certification against Non-Forum Shopping is a sworn statement attesting that the party has not filed any other action involving the same issues in any other court or tribunal.
What is the significance of Rule 47, Section 4?	Rule 47, Section 4 of the Rules of Court outlines the requirements for filing a petition for annulment of judgment, including the need for a verified petition and a sworn certification of non-forum shopping.
What did the Supreme Court ultimately decide?	The Supreme Court decided that the belated submission constituted substantial compliance, reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision, and reinstated the case for proper disposition.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Barangay Tongonan v. Hon. Apolinario M. Buaya, et al. highlights the importance of balancing procedural rules with the pursuit of substantive justice. It serves as a reminder that courts should not prioritize technicalities over the merits of a case, especially when there is evidence of a good-faith effort to comply with the rules.

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: BARANGAY TONGONAN V. BUAYA, G.R. No. 204183, June 20, 2018