l\epublic of tbe ~bilippine~

~upreme lourt

;ffianila
SECOND DIVISION
JOSELITO MA. P. JACINTO
(Formerly President ofF. Jacinto
Group, Inc.),

G.R. No. 191906

Petitioner,

Present:

-versus -

CARPIO, Chairperson,
BRION,
DEL CASTILLO,
PEREZ, and
PERLAS-BERNABE, JJ.

EDGARDO* GUMARU, JR.,

Respondent.

Promulgated:

JUN 0 2

DECISION
DEL CASTILLO, J.:

"When a judgment has been satisfied, it passes beyond review", 1 and "there
are no more proceedings to speak of inasmuch as these were terminated by the
satisfaction of the judgment."2
This Petition for Review on CertiorarP seeks to set aside the November 5,
2009 Resolution4 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 111098,
entitled "Joselito Ma. P. Jacinto (Former President of F Jacinto Group, Inc.),
Petitioner, versus Edgardo Gumaru, Jr. and the National Labor Relations
Commission, Respondents," as well as it~ March 24, 2010 Resolution5 denying the
petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration~~

Also spelled as Eduardo in some parts of the records.

CF. Sharp Crew Management, Inc. v. Undersecretary Espanol, Jr., 559 Phil. 826, 834 (2007).
Spouses Malolos v. Dy, 382 Phil. 709, 716 (2000).
Rollo, pp. 21-63.
CA rollo, pp. 179-180; penned by Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion and concurred in by Associate
Justices Mario L. Guarifia Ill and Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo.
Id. at 182-183.

Decision

G.R. No. 191906

Factual Antecedents
On December 6, 2004, a Decision6 was rendered in favor of respondent
Eduardo Gumaru, Jr. and against petitioner Joselito Ma. P. Jacinto and F. Jacinto
Group, Inc. in NLRC-NCR Case No. 00-06-07542-037 (the labor case), the
dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondents are hereby jointly and
severally liable to pay complainant the following:
1. Separation pay based on two months per year of service.
P50,000.00 x 2 x 10 years = P1,000,000.00
2. Other monetary claims.
A. 3 mos. unpaid wages & allowance =

P133,101.00

B. SL/VL for 2000 =

34,969.00

C. 13th month pay for 2000 =

24,944.00

3. Moral Damages in the sum of P100,000.00

4. Exemplary Damages in the sum of P500,000.00
5. 10% of all sums accruing shall be adjudged as attorneys fees.
It is understood that the withholding of the separation benefits plus other
monetary claims shall earn legal interest of 12% per annum from the time [they
were] unlawfully withheld on September 01, 2000.
SO ORDERED.8

Petitioner and F. Jacinto Group, Inc. filed an appeal with the National
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). However, the appeal was not perfected for
failure to post the proper cash or surety bond; this was the finding of the NLRC in
its Resolution dated September 30, 2005.9 Thus, the December 6, 2004 Decision
became final and executory. Entry of judgment was issued by the NLRC on
November 23, 2005.10
On February 6, 2006, a Writ of Execution11 was issued in the labor case. A
Second Alias Writ of Execution was issued and returned when the first one
6

8
9
10
11

NLRC records, pp. 65-69; penned by Labor Arbiter Ariel Cadiente Santos of the National Capital Regional
Arbitration Branch of the National Labor Relations Commission, Quezon City.
Entitled Eduardo Gumaru, Jr., Complainant, versus F. Jacinto Group, Inc. and/or Joselito Ma. P. Jacinto,
Respondents.
NLRC records, pp. 68-69.
Id. at 193-196.
Id. at 211.
Id. at 217-219.

Decision

G.R. No. 191906

expired. By virtue of such alias writ, real property belonging to petitioner

located in Baguio City and covered by Original Certificate of Title No. P-2010
was levied upon, and was scheduled to be sold at auction on June 27, 2008 or July
4, 2008.
On June 20, 2008, petitioner filed an Extremely Urgent Motion to Lift and
Annul Levy on Execution12 praying, among others, that the scheduled June 27,
2008 auction sale be restrained, and that the execution process covered by the
Second Alias Writ of Execution be invalidated.
On June 26, 2008, the Labor Arbiter issued an Order13 denying petitioners
Extremely Urgent Motion to Lift and Annul Levy on Execution, thus:
On June 20, 2008, respondents filed a Motion to Lift and Annul levy on
execution on the ground that the writ of execution served had already elapsed.
Finding that the writ of execution was issued on September 07, 2007 and
pursuant to the Supreme Courts declaration in the case of Merlinda Dagooc vs.
Roberto Endina, 453 SCRA 423 quoting section 14 of the Revised Rules of
Court, that the writ has a life of five years, the instant Motion is hereby DENIED.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the NLRC Sheriff is hereby
ORDERED to proceed with the auction sale set on June 27, 2008 at 10:00 AM
before the Register of Deeds of Baguio City.
SO ORDERED.14

The Subject Resolutions of the National Labor Relations Commission

Petitioner appealed the Labor Arbiters June 26, 2008 Order to the NLRC,
which, in a November 28, 2008 Resolution,15 set aside the same. The decretal
portion of the Resolution states:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Order appealed from is hereby
SET ASIDE and respondents-appellants Motion to Lift and Annul Levy is
GRANTED. The Labor Arbiter is also hereby ordered to oversee the proper
implementation and execution of the judgment award in this case.
Let the records be remanded to the Labor Arbiter of origin for further
execution proceedings.
SO ORDERED.16
12
13
14
15

16

Id. at 342-354.
Id. at 393.
Id.
Id. at 488-491; penned by Commissioner Pablo C. Espiritu, Jr. and concurred in by Presiding Commissioner
Lourdes C. Javier and Commissioner Gregorio O. Bilog III.
Id. at 490-491.

Decision

G.R. No. 191906

Petitioner moved for partial reconsideration, but in a July 27, 2009

Resolution,17 the NLRC stood its ground.
The Assailed Resolutions of the Court of Appeals
Petitioner went up to the CA on certiorari, assailing the November 28,
2008 and July 27, 2009 Resolutions of the NLRC. The Petition18 in CA-G.R. SP
No. 111098 contained a verification and certification of non-forum shopping that
was executed and signed not by petitioner, but by his counsel Atty. Ronald Mark
S. Daos.
On November 5, 2009, the CA issued the first assailed Resolution, which
held thus:
The Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping, which
accompanied the petition at bar, was executed and signed by petitioners counsel
Atty. Ronald Mark S. Daos, in violation of Section 5, Rule 7 of the Revised Rules
of Court.
Pursuant to Supreme Court Revised Circular No. 28-91, the duty to
certify under oath is strictly addressed to petitioner which in this case is herein
petitioner Joselito P. Jacinto and not his counsel to [sic] Atty. Ronald Mark S.
Daos. Thus, to allow the delegation of said duty to anyone would render
Supreme Court Revised Circular No. 28-91 inutile.
Accordingly, the petition is DENIED DUE COURSE and DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.19

Petitioner filed his Motion for Reconsideration,20 arguing that a verification

signed by counsel constitutes adequate and substantial compliance under Sections
4 and 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure;21 verification is merely a
17
18
19
20
21

Id. at 523-526.
CA rollo, pp. 8-32.
Id. at 134-135.
Id. at 136-147.
Which state:
RULE 7
PARTS OF A PLEADING
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 pleading 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:

Decision

G.R. No. 191906

formal, and not jurisdictional, requisite such that an improper verification or

certification against forum-shopping is not a fatal defect.22 Petitioner attached a
copy of an Affidavit23 acknowledged before the Hon. Paul Raymond Cortes,
Consul, Philippine Consulate General, Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S.A. attesting that
he caused the preparation of the CA Petition, and that he read the contents of the
CA Petition and affirm that they are true and correct and undisputed based on his
own personal knowledge and on authentic records. In said Affidavit, petitioner
further certified that he has not commenced any other action or proceeding, or
filed any claims involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, Court of
Appeals, or any Division thereof, or in any other court, tribunal or agency; to the
best of his knowledge, no such other action, proceeding, or claim is pending
before the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or any division thereof, or in any
court, tribunal or agency; if there is any other action or proceeding which is either
pending or may have been terminated, he will state the status thereof; if he should
thereafter learn that a similar action, proceeding or claim has been filed or is
pending before the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or any division thereof, or in
any court, tribunal or agency, he undertakes to promptly report the fact within five
days from notice thereof. Petitioner explained further that he was out of the
country, and could not return on account of his physical condition, which thus
constrained him to resort to the execution of a sworn statement in lieu of his actual
verification and certification as required under the Rules. Petitioner likewise
ratified Atty. Daoss acts done on his behalf relative to the labor case and the filing
of the CA Petition, and implored the appellate court to reconsider its November 5,
2009 Resolution and excuse his procedural oversight in respect of the improper
verification and certification in his CA Petition.
On March 24, 2010, the CA issued the second assailed Resolution denying
petitioners Motion for Reconsideration, stating that a writ of certiorari is merely a
prerogative writ, never demandable as a matter of right, never issued except in
the exercise of judicial discretion. Hence, he who seeks a writ of certiorari must
apply for it only in the manner and strictly in accordance with the provisions of the
law and the Rules.24

22

23
24

(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 noncompliance 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.
Citing Uy v. Workmens Compensation Commission, 186 Phil. 156, 162-164 (1980); Ballao v. Court of
Appeals, 535 Phil. 236, 243-244 (2006); Rombe Eximtrade (Phils.), Inc. v. Asiatrust Development Bank, 568
Phil. 810, 816-817 (2008).
CA rollo, pp. 148-150.
Id. at 163; citing Nayve v. Court of Appeals, 446 Phil. 473, 482-483 (2003).

Decision

G.R. No. 191906

Thus, the present Petition was instituted.

Issues
Petitioner raises the following issues:
4.1. THE COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE
SUBJECT PETITION.
A PARTY UNABLE TO SIGN THE CERTIFICATION AGAINST
FORUM SHOPPING CAN AUTHORIZE HIS COUNSEL TO SIGN
THE CERTIFICATION. IN HIS AFFIDAVIT AND SPECIAL POWER
OF ATTORNEY, PETITIONER EFFECTIVELY EMPOWERED HIS
COUNSEL TO EXECUTE THE REQUIRED VERIFICATION AND
CERTIFICATION. MOREOVER, PETITIONER, BEING ABROAD
AND PHYSICALLY UNABLE TO TRAVEL TO THE NEAREST
CONSULAR OFFICE, MERITED THE RELAXATION OF THE
TECHNICAL RULES ON VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION.
IN ANY EVENT, PETITIONER SUBSEQUENTLY SUBMITTED THE
NECESSARY DOCUMENT, IN SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE
WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF VERIFICATION AND
CERTIFICATION.
VERIFICATION BY COUNSEL IS LIKEWISE ADEQUATE AND
SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIANT.
THE REQUIREMENT OF
VERIFICATION IS ALSO DEEMED SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIED
WITH WHEN THE AFFIANT ACTED IN GOOD FAITH AND X X X
[POSSESSES] X X X SUFFICIENT KNOWLEDGE TO TRUTHFULLY
ATTEST THAT THE ALLEGATIONS ARE TRUE AND CORRECT,
AS IN THE CASE AT BAR. IN ANY CASE, VERIFICATION IS A
FORMAL, NOT A JURISDICTIONAL, REQUISITE. IT AFFECTS
ONLY THE FORM OF PLEADING BUT DOES NOT RENDER THE
PLEADING FATALLY DEFECTIVE.
4.2. THE COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD HAVE GIVEN DUE COURSE
TO THE SUBJECT PETITION.
THE MERITS, SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND COMPELLING
REASONS FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF THE SUBJECT PETITION,
SPECIFICALLY, THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF A PRIOR VALID
SERVICE ON PETITIONER OF THE RESOLUTION SUPPOSEDLY
DISPOSING OF HIS APPEAL OF THE DECEMBER 6, 2004
DECISION, THE SAID DECISION CANNOT BE IMPLEMENTED
AND EXECUTED BECAUSE IT HAS NOT ATTAINED FINALITY
AND JURIDICAL EXISTENCE, IS APPARENT. IF NOT
CORRECTED, IT WOULD CAUSE GREAT AND IRREPARABLE
DAMAGE AND INJURY, NOT TO MENTION GRAVE INJUSTICE,
TO PETITIONER, WHO WILL BE COMPELLED TO SATISFY A
JUDGMENT THAT OBVIOUSLY HAS NOT ATTAINED FINALITY

Decision

G.R. No. 191906

AND JURIDICAL EXISTENCE.25

Petitioners Arguments
Essentially, petitioner in his Petition and Reply26 argues that if, for
reasonable or justifiable reasons, a party is unable to sign the verification and
certification against forum-shopping, he could execute a special power of attorney
authorizing his lawyer to execute the verification and sign the certification on his
behalf. Which is exactly what petitioner did: he executed a special power of
attorney in favor of his counsel, Atty. Daos, authorizing the latter to file the
Petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 111098 and thus sign the verification and certification
against forum-shopping contained therein. Petitioner asserts that, going by the
dispositions of the Court in past controversies,27 the said procedure is allowed.
Petitioner next argues that there are compelling reasons to grant his Petition
for Certiorari. He asserts that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in
issuing its assailed November 28, 2008 and July 27, 2009 Resolutions remanding
the case to the Labor Arbiter for further proceedings on execution, claiming that
the December 6, 2004 Decision of the Labor Arbiter had not attained finality since
the NLRC failed to furnish him with a copy of its September 30, 2005 Resolution
which dismissed his appeal for failure to post the required bond and thus perfect
the appeal. Since the Labor Arbiters Decision has not attained finality, execution
proceedings could not commence; the NLRC may not direct the Labor Arbiter to
conduct execution proceedings below.
Petitioner therefore prays that the Court annul and set aside the assailed
Resolutions of the CA and order the reinstatement of his Petition for Certiorari in
the appellate court.
Respondents Arguments
In his Comment,28 respondent contends that with the dismissal of
petitioners certiorari petition by the CA, it is for all intents and purposes deemed
to have never been filed, and thus may not be corrected by resorting to a Petition
for Review under Rule 45. Respondent reiterates the view taken by the CA that
certiorari under Rule 65 is a prerogative writ that is not demandable as a matter of
right.

25
26
27

28

Rollo, pp. 32-33.

Id. at 415-444.
Citing Altres v. Empleo, G.R. No. 180986, December 10, 2008, 573 SCRA 583; Spouses Wee v. Galvez, 479
Phil. 737 (2004).
Rollo, pp. 397-402.

Decision

G.R. No. 191906

Respondent notes further that the Verification and Certification against

forum-shopping accompanying the instant Petition was not signed by petitioner,
but by his counsel, in consistent violation of the Courts Circular No. 28-91 and
Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
Respondent cites that he is already 71 years old, yet petitioner continues to
undermine execution of the judgment rendered in the labor case through the
instant Petition, which he prays the Court to deny.
Our Ruling
The Court finds that the Petition has become moot and academic.
It is true, as petitioner asserts, that if for reasonable or justifiable reasons he
is unable to sign the verification and certification against forum shopping in his
CA Petition, he may execute a special power of attorney designating his counsel
of record to sign the Petition on his behalf. In Altres v. Empleo,29 this view was
taken:
For the guidance of the bench and bar, the Court restates in capsule form
the jurisprudential pronouncements already reflected above respecting noncompliance with the requirements on, or submission of defective, verification
and certification against forum shopping:
1) A distinction must be made between non-compliance with the
requirement on or submission of defective verification, and non-compliance with
the requirement on or submission of defective certification against forum
shopping.
2) As to verification, non-compliance therewith or a defect therein does
not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective. The court may order its
submission or correction or act on the pleading if the attending circumstances are
such that strict compliance with the Rule may be dispensed with in order that the
ends of justice may be served thereby.
3) Verification is deemed substantially complied with when one who
has ample knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations in the complaint or
petition signs the verification, and when matters alleged in the petition have been
made in good faith or are true and correct.
4) As to certification against forum shopping, non-compliance
therewith or a defect therein, unlike in verification, is generally not curable by its
subsequent submission or correction thereof, unless there is a need to relax the
Rule on the ground of substantial compliance or presence of special
circumstances or compelling reasons.

29

Supra note 27.

Decision

G.R. No. 191906

5) The certification against forum shopping must be signed by all the

plaintiffs or petitioners in a case; otherwise, those who did not sign will be
dropped as parties to the case. Under reasonable or justifiable circumstances,
however, as when all the plaintiffs or petitioners share a common interest and
invoke a common cause of action or defense, the signature of only one of them in
the certification against forum shopping substantially complies with the Rule.
6) Finally, the certification against forum shopping must be executed by
the party-pleader, not by his counsel. H, however, for reasonable or justifiable

reasons, the party-pleader is unable to sign, he must execute a Special

Power of Attorney designating his counsel of record to sign on his behalf.30
(Emphasis supplied)

However, while the Court takes the petitioner's side with regard to the
procedural issue dealing with verification and the certification against forumshopping, it nonetheless appears that the Petition has been overtaken by events. In
31
a May 24, 2011 Manifestation, respondent informed this Court that the judgment
award has been satisfied in full. The petitioner does not dispute this claim, in
which case, the labor case is now deemed ended. "It is axiomatic that after a
judgment has been fully satisfied, the case is deemed terminated once and for
all."32 And "when a judgment has been satisfied, it passes beyond review,
satisfaction being the last act and the end of the proceedings, and payment or
satisfaction of the obligation thereby established produces permanent and
irrevocable discharge; hence, a judgment debtor who acquiesces to and voluntarily
complies with the judgment is estopped from taking an appeal therefrom."33
With the above development in the case, the instant Petition is rendered
moot and academic. The satisfaction of the judgment in full has placed the case
beyond the Court's review. "Indeed, there are no more proceedings to speak of
inasmuch as these were terminated by the satisfaction of the judgment."34
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED for being moot and academic.
SO ORDERED.

//7~~0

~O C. DEL CASTILLO
Associate Justice

30

Id. at 596-598.

31

Rollo, pp. 451-455.

Spouses Malolos v. Dy, supra note 2; Freeman, Inc. v. Securities and Exchange Commission, G.R. No.
110265, July 7, 1994, 233 SCRA 735, 743; Alazas v. Judge Salas, 259 Phil. 432, 437 (1989).
C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc. v. Undersecretary Espanol, Jr., supra note 1.
Spouses Malolos v. Dy, supra note 2 at 717.

32

33
34

Decision

G.R. No. 191906

10

WE CONCUR:

ANTONIOT.C
Associate Justice
Chairperson

(),IUUJ(j~
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice

'Associate Justice

ESTELA~~RNABE
Associate Justice

ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson

Decision

11

G.R. No. 191906

CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division
Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had
been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court's Division.

MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO

ChiefJustice