The Supreme Court ruled that when multiple parties file a case, each must sign the certification of non-forum shopping or provide proof that the signatory is authorized to represent them. This requirement ensures that all parties are aware of and accountable for the case and prevents the possibility of conflicting claims or actions in different courts. Failure to comply with this rule can lead to the dismissal of the case, emphasizing the importance of adhering to procedural requirements.

Signing on the Dotted Line: When One Signature Isn’t Enough in Court Petitions

Philippine Valve Manufacturing Company (PVMC) and Rene B. Galera faced an illegal dismissal case filed by Teresita N. An. The Labor Arbiter initially ruled PVMC was not guilty of illegal dismissal but ordered severance pay. PVMC and Galera appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision. Undeterred, they elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA) via a petition for certiorari. However, the CA dismissed the petition because the certification of non-forum shopping was signed only by Galera. The court noted that PVMC failed to demonstrate that it had authorized Galera to file the petition on its behalf, raising the central legal question: In cases with multiple petitioners, must each party sign the certification of non-forum shopping, or is one signature sufficient?

The Supreme Court, in its analysis, underscored the mandatory nature of the certification against forum shopping, referring to Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court. This rule explicitly requires that “the plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath” that no similar actions are pending in other tribunals. The purpose is to prevent litigants from simultaneously pursuing the same claim in multiple forums, a practice known as forum shopping. This practice burdens the courts, wastes resources, and can lead to conflicting judgments, and the rule is meant to deter such abuse of the legal system.

Petitioners argued that PVMC, as a general partnership, should not be held to the same standard as corporations, citing the case of Premium Marble Resources v. Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, clarifying that the requirement for proper representation applies to any juridical entity, whether corporation or partnership. Each entity needs a designated representative to ensure accountability and prevent conflicting actions.

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.

The Court emphasized that when multiple plaintiffs or petitioners are involved, a complaint or petition signed by only one is considered defective unless the signatory is authorized by the co-parties to represent them and sign the certification. In this case, Galera signed the verification and certification for the petition filed before the Court of Appeals without any proof of authorization from PVMC. Furthermore, the court stated that it could not be presumed that Galera knew, to the best of his knowledge, whether or not his co-petitioner had the same or similar actions or claims filed or pending. The attestation in the certification of non-forum shopping requires personal knowledge by the party who executes it, thus necessitating either individual signatures or a clear delegation of authority.

Petitioners also contended that an affidavit executed by Marlyn Chiu, a partner in PVMC, attesting to Galera’s authority should suffice. This affidavit was submitted during the motion for reconsideration before the Court of Appeals. However, citing Spouses Valentin Ortiz and Camilla Milan Ortiz v. Court of Appeals, et al., the Court stated that substantial compliance does not override the strict observance of the law. The attestation requires personal knowledge; therefore, petitioners must demonstrate a reasonable cause for failing to personally sign the certification. They must also persuade the Court that dismissing the petition outright would defeat the administration of justice, which the petitioners in this case failed to do.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court denied the petition, reaffirming the Court of Appeals’ decision and reinforcing the need for strict adherence to the rules on certification against forum shopping. The ruling clarifies that each party in a multi-party litigation must either sign the certification or provide documented authorization for a representative to act on their behalf. This decision underscores the significance of procedural compliance and its impact on the outcome of legal proceedings. The case serves as a reminder that procedural rules are not mere technicalities but integral components of a fair and efficient legal system.

FAQs

What is a certification of non-forum shopping?	A certification of non-forum shopping is a sworn statement affirming that the party has not filed any similar case in other courts or tribunals, aiming to prevent simultaneous pursuit of the same claim in multiple venues.
Why is the certification of non-forum shopping required?	It is required to prevent forum shopping, which burdens the courts, wastes resources, and can lead to conflicting judgments. It ensures transparency and integrity in the legal process.
What happens if the certification is not properly executed in cases with multiple parties?	The case may be dismissed. Each party must either sign the certification or provide authorization for the signatory to represent them.
Can an affidavit submitted later serve as a substitute for proper certification?	Generally, no. The Supreme Court requires strict compliance with the rule on certification, and substantial compliance may not be sufficient.
Does this rule apply to both corporations and partnerships?	Yes, the requirement for proper representation applies to any juridical entity, whether it’s a corporation or a partnership.
What if a party claims they didn’t know about the other actions filed by their co-petitioner?	The attestation requires personal knowledge, so it is necessary for each party to certify or authorize someone who has personal knowledge of all actions filed.
What is the key takeaway from this case?	All parties involved in a legal action must ensure they comply strictly with procedural rules, especially the certification against forum shopping, to avoid dismissal of their case.
What should petitioners do if they cannot all personally sign the certification?	They must provide a clear authorization, such as a board resolution or a special power of attorney, demonstrating that the signatory is authorized to represent all parties and has the necessary knowledge.

This case underscores the critical importance of adhering to procedural rules in legal proceedings. While seemingly a technicality, the certification against forum shopping serves to maintain the integrity of the justice system by preventing the simultaneous pursuit of identical claims in different venues. The Supreme Court’s decision reaffirms that strict compliance is necessary and that all parties must either sign the certification themselves or provide proper authorization to a representative.

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: PHILIPPINE VALVE MFG. COMPANY VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, G.R. No. 152304, November 12, 2004