Fuentebella vs. Castro

CASE: 161. Art Fuentebella, Rolling Hills Memorial Park, Inc. (RHMP) vs. Darlica Castro.
● Omission in certificate of non-forum shopping about events that wouldn’t constitute res

Petition: Petition for review seeking the nullification of the resolutions of the CA judicata & litis pendentia, is not fatal to merit dismissal & nullification of entire
● Freddie Castro’s widow Darlica engaged RHMP’s funeral services at 9/27/97 at 3PM. proceedings considering evils sought to be prevented by the said certificate are not present
○ When the casket's about to be lowered into the vault, the vault dimensions didn’t ○ Submission of a false certification shall constitute indirect contempt of cour t,
correspond to casket measurements, thus, the casket was lifted & placed under DISPOSITION: DENIED
the sun’s heat for 1 hour in front of all mourners while the vault was being prepared.
■ RHMP employees measured the casket by using a spade.
○ Insulted by the funeral events, Darlica wrote to RHMP’s management demanding an
explanation for its negligence, but they did not respond nor attempt to apologize.
● 3/16/98 Darlica filed for damages against Art & RHMP before MTCC.
○ Art & RHMP MTD: MTCC w/o jurisdiction because damages claimed is above P200k.
■ Darlica filed a motion to withdraw the complaint, which was granted by MTCC
● Darlica filed same complaint & Verification & Certification against Forum Shopping with RTC
○ Art & RHMP MTD: false certification; Darlica filed an identical complaint with MTCC.
● 1/3/00 RTC denied MTD & MR | 9/27/01 CA denied Art & RHMP’s certiorari petition & MR
○ Art & RHMP: board resolution or secretary’s certificate is unnecessary to prove that
one signing the petition or verification & certification against forum shopping is
authorized
ISSUE: Obligatory that the one signing the verification & certification against forum
shopping on principal party or other petitioners’ behalf has the authority to do the same.
● Rule 7, Section 5 mandates that petitioner execute certification against forum shopping.
○ Reason: principal party has actual knowledge whether a petition has previously been
filed involving the same case or substantially the same issues.
■ If principal party can’t sign, the one signing on his behalf must be duly authorized.
● Requirement is intended to apply to both natural & juridical persons as SC Circular No.
28-91 & Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court do not make a distinction between them.
○ If petitioner is a corporation, the certification against forum shopping should be signed
by its duly authorized director or representative.
■ if the real party-in-interest is a corporate body, an officer can sign the certification
against forum shopping so long as he’s duly authorized by resolution of its board.
● Where there are several petitioners, it is insufficient that only one of them executes the
certification, absent a showing that he was so authorized by the others.
○ Certification requires personal knowledge & it can’t be presumed that signatory knew
that his co-petitioners had the same or similar actions filed or pending.
■ certification which had been signed without the proper authorization is
defective & constitutes a valid cause for the dismissal of the petition.
● RHMP Administrative Manager Lourdes, who signed the verification & certificate on non-
forum shopping, initially failed to submit a secretary’s certificate or a board resolution
confirming her authority to sign for RHMP, & a SPA to sign on behalf of co-petitioner Art, who
was sued jointly & solidarily with the corporation in his capacity as RHMP’s officer.
● Section 3 Rule 46 requires petitioner to sign the certificate of non-forum shopping.
○ For corporations, the physical act of signing may be performed by specifically
authorized individuals because corporations, as artificial persons, can’t do such task.
■ With natural persons, the Rule requires the parties themselves to sign
○ Reason: petitioner himself, corporation, or its representative, knows better than anyone
whether a separate case is filed or pending involving substantially the same issues.
● 2 conditions for to be exempt: (1) show justifiable cause for failure to personally sign the
certification; & (2) prove that petition’s outright dismissal would seriously impair the orderly
administration of justice | Art & RHMP failed to prove the presence of these conditions.

Fuentebella vs. Castro

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fuentebella vs. Castro

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fuentebella vs. Castro

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CASE: 161. Art Fuentebella, Rolling Hills Memorial Park, Inc. (RHMP) vs. Darlica Castro.

● Omission in certificate of non-forum shopping about events that wouldn’t constitute res

You might also like