Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                

Juris NPC

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 3

G.R. No.

133284 May 9, 2000

SPS. CLARO PONCIANO and GLORIA PONCIANO, petitioners,


vs.
HONORABLE JOSE J. PARENTELA, JR., Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of
Trece Martires City, Br. 23 and SPS. ILDEFONSO CLAMOSA and LEONORA
CLAMOSA, respondents.

Administrative Circular No. 04-94 6 was issued by this Court in order to prevent the undesirable
practice of forum-shopping, which exists when, as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a
party seeks a favorable opinion (other than by appeal or certiorari) in another, or when he
institutes two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause, on the chance that one
or the other court would make a favorable disposition. 7 The pertinent portion of the Circular
provides —

x x x           x x x          x x x

(1) The plaintiff, petitioner, applicant or principal party seeking relief in the
complaint, petition, application or other initiatory pleading shall certify under oath
in such original pleading, or in a sworn certification annexed thereto and
simultaneously filed therewith, to the truth of the following facts and
undertakings: (a) he has not theretofore commenced any other action or
proceeding involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals,
or any other tribunal or agency; (b) to the best of his knowledge, no such action or
proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other
tribunal or agency; (c) if there is any such action or proceeding which is either
pending or may have been terminated, he must state the status thereof; and (d) if
he should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is
pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or
agency, he undertakes to report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the
court or agency wherein the original pleading and sworn certification
contemplated herein have been filed.

The complaint and other initiatory pleadings referred to and subject of this
Circular are the original civil complaint, counterclaim, cross-claim, third (fourth,
etc.) party complaint, or complaint-in-intervention, petition, or application
wherein a party asserts his claim for relief.

This very same issue was confronted in the case of Santo Tomas University Hospital v. Surla,8
wherein we held that the above-quoted provisions of administrative Circular No. 04-94 do not
apply to compulsory counterclaims. Speaking for the Court, Justice Vitug explained that —
It bears stressing, once again, that the real office of Administrative Circular No.
04-94, made effective on 01 April 1994, is to curb the malpractice commonly
referred to also as forum-shopping. It is an act of a party against whom an adverse
judgment has been rendered in one forum of seeking and possibly getting a
favorable opinion in another forum, other than by appeal or the special civil action
of certiorari, or the institution of two or more actions or proceedings grounded on
the same cause on the supposition that one or the other court would make a
favorable disposition. The language of the circular distinctly suggests that it is
primarily intended to cover an initiatory pleading or an incipient application of a
party asserting a claim for relief.

It should not be too difficult, the foregoing rationale of the circular aptly taken, to
sustain the view that the circular in question has not, in fact, been contemplated to
include a kind of claim which, by its very nature as being auxiliary to the
proceedings in the suit and as deriving its substantive and jurisdictional support
therefrom, can only be appropriately pleaded in the answer and not remain
outstanding for independent resolution except by the court where the main case
pends. Prescinding from the foregoing, the proviso in the second paragraph of
Section 5, Rule 8, of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, i.e., that the violation of
the anti-forum shopping rule "shall not curable by mere amendment . . . but shall
be cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice," being predicated on the
applicability of the need for a certification against forum-shopping, obviously
does not include a claim which cannot be independently set up.

Shipside Incorporated v. Court of Appeals77 cited the discussion in Uy and differentiated its
effect from non-compliance with the requirement of certification against forum shopping: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

On the other hand, the lack of certification against forum shopping is generally not curable by
the submission thereof after the filing of the petition. Section 5, Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure provides that the failure of the petitioner to submit the required documents that
should accompany the petition, including the certification against forum shopping, shall be
sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof. The same rule applies to certifications against forum
shopping signed by a person on behalf of a corporation which are unaccompanied by proof that
said signatory is authorized to file a petition on behalf of the corporation.78 (Emphasis supplied)

Rule 7, Section 5 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides the requirement of certification
against forum shopping.

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.

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 non-compliance 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.

You might also like