[ GR No.

148635, Apr 01, 2003 ] of strict compliance with the provisions regarding the
MARILLA MAYANG CAVILE v. HEIRS OF CLARITA CAVILE certification of non-forum shopping merely underscores
+ its mandatory nature in that the certification cannot be
DECISION altogether dispensed with or its requirements completely
448 Phil. 302 disregarded. It does not thereby interdict substantial
compliance with its provisions under justifiable
circumstances.
FACTS:
This case has its roots in the complaint filed by the We find that the execution by Thomas George Cavile, Sr.
respondents against the petitioners for partition of the in behalf of all the other petitioners of the certificate of
properties left by their common ascendant, Bernardo Cavili. non-forum shopping constitutes substantial compliance
with the Rules. All the petitioners, being relatives and co-
It appears that Bernardo Cavili contracted three marriages. owners of the properties in dispute, share a common interest
Throughout his lifetime, Bernardo Cavili acquired six parcels of thereon. They also share a common defense in the complaint
land which became the subject of the instant case. for partition filed by the respondents. Thus, when they filed the
instant petition, they filed it as a collective, raising only one
In October 1977, the descendants of Bernardo's first and argument to defend their rights over the properties in question.
second marriage (herein respondents) filed a complaint for There is sufficient basis, therefore, for Thomas George Cavili,
partition against the descendants of his third marriage (herein Sr. to speak for and in behalf of his co-petitioners that they
petitioners). The complaint alleged, among others, that have not filed any action or claim involving the same issues in
respondents and petitioners were co-owners of the properties another court or tribunal, nor is there other pending action or
in question, having inherited the same from Bernardo Cavili. claim in another court or tribunal involving the same issues.
Upon the death of Bernardo, his son by his third marriage, Moreover, it has been held that the merits of the substantive
Castor Cavili, took possession of the properties as aspects of the case may be deemed as "special circumstance"
administrator for and in behalf of his co-owners. However, for the Court to take cognizance of a petition for review
when Castor died, his children took possession of the parcels although the certification against forum shopping was executed
of land but no longer as administrators. They claimed the and signed by only one of the petitioners.
properties as well as their fruits as their own and repeatedly
refused respondents' demand for partition. After a thorough study of the records of this case, we find the
petition to be meritorious.
As petitioners failed to file an Answer within the reglementary
period, they were declared in default and respondents were We hold that the trial court was correct in dismissing the
allowed to present evidence ex parte. The trial court rendered complaint for partition, it appearing that the lawful heirs of
a decision on October 5, 1979 ordering the partition of the six Bernardo Cavili have already divided the properties among
parcels of land.[1] However, upon motion of Primitivo Cavili themselves, as evidenced by the Deed of Partition dated April
and Quirino Cavili who were not properly served with 5, 1937.
summons, the trial court held a new trial and allowed said
parties to present evidence. Among the evidence they
proferred was a Deed of Partition which appeared to have
been executed by the heirs of Bernardo Cavili on April 5, 1937.
[2] Giving weight to the documentary evidence presented by
Primitivo Cavili and Quirino Cavili, the trial court rendered
another decision on May 7, 1991 dismissing the complaint for
partition.[

Respondents appealed the case to the Court of Appeals, but

the appellate court reversed the decision of the trial court. It
ruled that the trial court erred in admitting the Deed of Partition
as evidence without proof of its authenticity and due execution.

Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:

IS THE CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING

ATTACHED TO THE PETITION WAS SIGNED BY ONLY ONE
OF THE PETITIONERS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIED WITH
THE RULES? YES

RULING:
The rule is that the certificate of non-forum shopping must be
signed by all the petitioners or plaintiffs in a case and the
signing by only one of them is insufficient. However, the Court
has also stressed that the rules on forum shopping, which were
designed to promote and facilitate the orderly administration of
justice, should not be interpreted with such absolute literalness
as to subvert its own ultimate and legitimate objective. The rule
of substantial compliance may be availed of with respect to the
contents of the certification. This is because the requirement

1
 SHOPPING "DID NOT APPEAR TO BE DULY AUTHORIZED
No. 153653, Oct 02, 2009 ] TO DO SO," WHEN IN FACT THE SAID REPRESENTATIVE
SAN MIGUEL BUKID HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION v. WAS DULY AUTHORIZED BY THE PETITIONER
CITY OF MANDALUYONG + CORPORATION'S BOARD OF DIRECTORS? YES
DECISION
617 Phil. 231 WHETHER OR NOT THE LACK OF CERTIFICATION
AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING IS GENERALLY NOT
CURABLE BY THE SUBMISSION THEREOF AFTER THE
FACTS: FILING OF THE PETITION, WHEN IN TRUTH, WHAT WAS
SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER WITH THE MOTION FOR
Petitioner San Miguel Bukid Homeowners Association, Inc. RECONSIDERATION WAS NOT A CERTIFICATION
(formerly known as Bukid Neighborhood Landless AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING BUT A SECRETARY'S
Association), an association of urban poor dwellers of San CERTIFICATE OF A BOARD RESOLUTION CONFIRMING
Miguel Bukid Compound, Plainview, Mandaluyong City, filed AND RATIFYING THE AUTHORITY OF THE
with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaluyong City a REPRESENTATIVE TO ACT AS SUCH? YES
Complaint[3] for specific performance and damages against
respondents City of Mandaluyong (City) and A.F. Calma RULING:
General Construction (Calma). It is alleged therein that
pursuant to the City's Land for the Landless Program, In Fuentebella v. Castro,[16] the Court categorically stated
petitioner and the City entered into a Memorandum of that "if the real party-in-interest is a corporate body, an officer
Agreement (MOA), whereby the City purchased lots and then of the corporation can sign the certification against forum
transferred the same to petitioner with a first real estate shopping so long as he has been duly authorized by a
mortgage in favor of the City. Subsequently, the City and resolution of its board of directors."[17] In this case, the
Calma entered into a Contract Agreement for the latter to Certificate of Board Resolution attached to the petition for
construct row houses and medium-rise buildings on the certiorari filed with the CA reads as follows:
aforementioned lots within 540 calendar days for the benefit of
petitioner's members. In June 1995, Calma began x x x in a meeting of the Board of Directors of the SAN
construction, but in June 1996, work on the project was MIGUEL BUKID HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, held on 7
stopped. The period of 540 days elapsed sometime in November 1999, the following resolution was unanimously
November 1996, but the houses and buildings were not yet adopted by the General Assembly of the Association:
completed. Petitioner's letters sent to the Mayor of the City
requesting an update on the project remained unanswered. RESOLVED, that the ASSOCIATION re-file its Complaint for
Hence, petitioner filed the complaint praying that the City and Specific Performance with Damages against the CITY
Calma be ordered to perform their respective undertakings and GOVERNMENT OF MANDALUYONG and A.F. CALMA
obligations under the Contract Agreement and to pay petitioner GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION in order to
attorney's fees, exemplary damages and litigation expenses. enforce their obligations under the CONTRACT AGREEMENT
for a housing project in favor of the ASSOCIATION;
The City filed an Answer[4] within the extended period granted
by the trial court. RESOLVED, further, that MR. EVELIO D. BARATA, President
of the ASSOCIATION, be authorized to initiate, sign, file and
Calma did not file an Answer. prosecute the COMPLAINT.[18]

On September 12, 2000, petitioner filed a Motion to Declare Evidently, petitioner only authorized its President, Evelio
Defendant in Default. It pointed out that the lawyer who signed Barata, to initiate, sign, file and prosecute the Complaint
the City's Answer was a private counsel, not the Office of the for specific performance.
City Legal Officer which, according to petitioner, was the only
office authorized under Section 248 of the Local Government
Code to represent the local government unit in all civil actions. The submission of a Secretary's Certificate with the
Thus, petitioner prayed that the City be declared in default on Motion for Reconsideration is also insufficient to cure the
the ground that the City's Answer was a mere scrap of paper initial defect. Said Certificate stated that petitioner's Board of
and should not be admitted in court for being an unsigned Trustees approved a Resolution at a meeting held on April 7,
pleading, the same not having been signed and filed by a duly 2002, confirming and ratifying the authority of Mr. Barata to
authorized representative of the City. sign all necessary papers for the petition for certiorari. Note
that the petition was filed on March 26, 2002, or before the
In its Order[5] dated June 4, 2001, the RTC denied petitioner's date of said Resolution. There is no certification as to when
motion, ruling that a party should only be declared in default in petitioner's Board of Trustees originally granted Mr. Barata
cases showing clear obstinate refusal or inordinate neglect in authority to show that as of the date of the filing of the petition
complying with the Orders of the court. for certiorari, Mr. Barata had been authorized to perform such
acts. Moreover, as ruled in Tible and Tible Company, Inc. v.
The matter was elevated by petitioner to the CA via a petition Royal Savings and Loan Association,[21] to wit:
for certiorari. CA dismissed the petition outright because the
person who signed the Verification/Certification of Non-Forum In Athena Computers, Inc. v. Reyes, the Court stressed that
Shopping thereof did not appear to be authorized by petitioner. "certiorari, being an extraordinary remedy, the party who seeks
to avail of the same must strictly observe the rules laid down
ISSUE: by the law." x x x.

WHETHER OR NOT THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE xxxx

PETITIONER WHO SIGNED THE
VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM

2
x x x subsequent compliance does not ipso facto entitle a party excuse a party's failure to comply therewith in the first instance.
to a reconsideration of the dismissal order. As the Court aptly In those cases where this Court excused the non-compliance
observed in Batoy v. Regional Trial Court, Br. 50, Loay, Bohol: with the requirement of the submission of a certificate of non-
forum shopping, it found special circumstances or compelling
x x x the requirement under Administrative Circular No. 04- reasons which made the strict application of said Circular
94 for a certificate of non-forum shopping is mandatory. clearly unjustified or inequitable. x x x [22] (Emphasis supplied)
The subsequent compliance with said requirement does not
[ GR No. 170891, Nov 24, 2009 ] Appeals ruled, however, that Atty. Cruz's certification
MANUEL C. ESPIRITU v. PETRON CORPORATION + constituted sufficient compliance.
DECISION
620 Phil. 254 ISSUE:

FACTS: 1. WHETHER OR NOT THE CERTIFICATE OF NON-FORUM

Respondent Petron Corporation (Petron) sold and distributed SHOPPING THAT ACCOMPANIED THE PETITION FILED
liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) in cylinder tanks that carried its WITH THE COURT OF APPEALS, SIGNED ONLY BY ATTY.
trademark "Gasul."[1] Respondent Carmen J. Doloiras owned CRUZ ON BEHALF OF PETRON, COMPLIED WITH WHAT
and operated Kristina Patricia Enterprises (KPE), the exclusive THE RULES REQUIRE? YES
distributor of Gasul LPGs in the whole of Sorsogon.

Bicol Gas Refilling Plant Corporation (Bicol Gas) was also in RULING:
the business of selling and distributing LPGs in Sorsogon but
theirs carried the trademark "Bicol Savers Gas."
First. Petitioners Espiritu, et al. point out that the certificate of
According to Jose, KPE's manager, in April 2001 Bicol Gas non-forum shopping that respondents KPE and Petron
agreed with KPE for the swapping of "captured cylinders" since attached to the petition they filed with the Court of Appeals was
one distributor could not refill captured cylinders with its own inadequate, having been signed only by Petron, through Atty.
brand of LPG. At one time, in the course of implementing this Cruz.
arrangement, KPE's Jose visited the Bicol Gas refilling plant.
While there, he noticed several Gasul tanks in Bicol Gas' But, while procedural requirements such as that of
possession. He requested a swap but Audie Llona of Bicol Gas submittal of a certificate of non-forum shopping cannot be
replied that he first needed to ask the permission of the Bicol totally disregarded, they may be deemed substantially
Gas owners. That permission was given and they had a swap complied with under justifiable circumstances. One of
involving around 30 Gasul tanks held by Bicol Gas in exchange these circumstances is where the petitioners filed a
for assorted tanks held by KPE. collective action in which they share a common interest in
its subject matter or raise a common cause of action. In
Because of the above incident, KPE filed a complaint[3] for such a case, the certification by one of the petitioners may
violations of Republic Act (R.A.) 623 (illegally filling up be deemed sufficient.
registered cylinder tanks), as amended, and Sections 155
(infringement of trade marks) and 169.1 (unfair competition) of Here, KPE and Petron shared a common cause of action
the Intellectual Property Code (R.A. 8293). The complaint against petitioners Espiritu, et al., namely, the violation of their
charged the following: Jerome Misal, Jun Leorena, Rolly proprietary rights with respect to the use of Gasul tanks and
Mirabena, Audie Llona, and several John and Jane Does, trademark. Furthermore, Atty. Cruz said in his certification that
described as the directors, officers, and stockholders of Bicol he was executing it "for and on behalf of the Corporation, and
Gas. These directors, officers, and stockholders were co-petitioner Carmen J. Doloiras."[9] Thus, the object of the
eventually identified during the preliminary investigation. requirement - to ensure that a party takes no recourse to
multiple forums - was substantially achieved. Besides, the
Undaunted, Petron and KPE filed a special civil action for failure of KPE to sign the certificate of non-forum shopping
certiorari with the Court of Appeals[ but the Bicol Gas does not render the petition defective with respect to Petron
employees and stockholders concerned opposed it, assailing which signed it through Atty. Cruz.[10] The Court of Appeals,
the inadequacy in its certificate of non-forum shopping, given therefore, acted correctly in giving due course to the petition
that only Atty. Joel Angelo C. Cruz signed it on behalf of before it.
Petron. In its Decision[5] dated October 17, 2005, the Court of
MID-PASIG LAND DEVELOPMENT represented by its proprietor, Mario P. Tablante, executed an
CORPORATION,Petitioner, agreement whereby the former would lease to the latter an
- versus - area, approximately one (1) hectare, of the aforesaid land, for
MARIO TABLANTE, doing business under the name and a period of three (3) months, to be used as the staging area for
style ECRM ENTERPRISES; ROCKLAND CONSTRUCTION the Home and Garden Exhibition Fair. On March 6, 2000, the
COMPANY;LAURIE LITAM; and MC HOME DEPOT, INC., date of the expiration of the Lease Agreement, Tablante
Respondents. assigned all his rights and interests under the said agreement
G.R. No. 162924 to respondents Laurie M. Litam and/or Rockland Construction
Company, Inc. (Rockland) under a Deed of Assignment of the
same date. Petitioner eventually learned that respondent
Tablante had executed a Contract of Lease with respondent
FACTS: MC Home Depot, Inc. on November 26, 1999 over the same
Petitioner is the registered owner of a piece of land situated in parcel of land. Thereafter, respondent MC Home Depot, Inc.
Pasig City, bounded by Meralco Avenue, Ortigas Avenue, Doa constructed improvements on the land and subdivided the area
Julia Vargas Avenue, and Valle Verde Subdivision. On into fifty-nine (59) commercial stalls, which it leased to various
December 6, 1999, petitioner, represented by its Chairman and entities. Upon the expiration of the lease on March 6, 2000,
President, Ronaldo Salonga, and ECRM Enterprises,

3
petitioner demanded that respondents vacate the land. A final board of directors. Thus, it is clear that an individual corporate
demand was made in a letter dated December 20, 2000.[2] officer cannot solely exercise any corporate power pertaining
to the corporation without authority from the board of directors.
This has been our constant holding in cases instituted by a
In order to forestall ejectment from the premises, respondent corporation.
Rockland filed a case for Specific Performance with the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 266, Pasig City, on In a slew of cases, however, we have recognized the authority
January 11, 2001, compelling petitioner to execute a new lease of some corporate officers to sign the verification and
contract for another three (3) years, commencing in July 2000. certification against forum shopping. In Mactan-Cebu
This was docketed as Civil Case No. 68213. Petitioner moved International Airport Authority v. CA, we recognized the
to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it was anticipatory authority of a general manager or acting general manager to
in nature. sign the verification and certificate against forum shopping; x x
x.
Consequently, on August 22, 2001, petitioner filed Civil Case
No. 8788 for unlawful detainer against herein respondents, In sum, we have held that the following officials or
raffled to the Municipal Trial Court (MTC), Pasig City, Branch employees of the company can sign the verification and
70. Simultaneously, petitioner filed a supplemental motion to certification without need of a board resolution: (1) the
dismiss Civil Case No. 68213, on the ground of litis pendentia. Chairperson of the Board of Directors, (2) the President of a
Petitioners motion to dismiss was denied. The denial was corporation, (3) the General Manager or Acting General
questioned and eventually elevated to the Supreme Court.[3] Manager, (4) Personnel Officer, and (5) an Employment
Specialist in a labor case.
Meantime, on April 29, 2002, the MTC rendered judgment in
the unlawful detainer (ejectment) case. In the main, the trial While the above cases do not provide a complete listing of
court ruled that the issue did not involve material or physical authorized signatories to the verification and certification
possession, but rather, whether or not ECRM had the right to required by the rules, the determination of the sufficiency
exercise an option to renew its lease contract. The MTC stated of the authority was done on a case to case basis. The
that, considering that this issue was incapable of pecuniary rationale applied in the foregoing cases is to justify the
estimation, jurisdiction over the case was vested in the RTC. authority of corporate officers or representatives of the
corporation to sign the verification or certificate against
On appeal, the RTC, Pasig City, Branch 160, affirmed in toto forum shopping, being in a position to verify the
truthfulness and correctness of the allegations in the
A petition for certiorari was consequently filed with the CA. petition.

ISSUE: From the foregoing, it is thus clear that the failure to attach the
Secretarys Certificate, attesting to General Manager Antonio
WHETHER OR NOT THE VERIFICATION AND Mereloss authority to sign the Verification and Certification of
CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM-SHOPPING IN THE Non-Forum Shopping, should not be considered fatal to the
PETITION WAS SUFFICIENT FAILED TO ATTACH THE filing of the petition. Nonetheless, the requisite board resolution
BOARD RESOLUTION SHOWING THE AUTHORITY OF THE was subsequently submitted to the CA, together with the
AFFIANT? YES pertinent documents. Considering that petitioner substantially
complied with the rules, the dismissal of the petition was,
therefore, unwarranted. Time and again, we have emphasized
RULING: that dismissal of an appeal on a purely technical ground is
frowned upon especially if it will result in unfairness. The rules
In Cagayan Valley Drug Corporation v. Commissioner of of procedure ought not to be applied in a very rigid, technical
Internal Revenue, the Court had occasion to explain that: sense for they have been adopted to help secure, not override,
substantial justice. For this reason, courts must proceed with
It must be borne in mind that Sec. 23, in relation to Sec. 25 of caution so as not to deprive a party of statutory appeal; rather,
the Corporation Code, clearly enunciates that all corporate they must ensure that all litigants are granted the amplest
powers are exercised, all business conducted, and all opportunity for the proper and just ventilation of their causes,
properties controlled by the board of directors. A corporation free from the constraint of technicalities.
has a separate and distinct personality from its directors and
officers and can only exercise its corporate powers through the
G.R. No. 200055, September 10, 2014 consequence of the accident from any person liable thereto.4
Based on said document, petitioner, in its letter5 dated April
STANDARD INSURANCE CO., INC., Petitioner, v. ARNOLD 15, 2004 addressed to respondents, demanded the payment of
CUARESMA AND JERRY B. CUARESMA, Respondents. the sum spent on repairing the vehicle driven by Cham.

FACTS: Meanwhile, on August 10, 2004, an Information6 was filed with

On March 20, 2004, two vehicles, one driven by Jefferson the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Quezon City charging
Cham and insured with petitioner Standard Insurance Co., Inc., Cham of the crime of Reckless Imprudence Resulting in
and the other owned by respondent Arnold Cuaresma and Damage to Property docketed as Criminal Case No. 020256.
driven by respondent Jerry B. Cuaresma, figured in an During the pendency thereof, on March 17, 2008, petitioner,
accident at North Avenue, Quezon City.3 Consequently, the claiming that respondents collided with Cham's vehicle in a
damage on the vehicle driven by Cham was repaired, the cost reckless and imprudent manner, filed a Complaint7 for Sum of
of which was borne by petitioner. Cham then executed a Money with the MeTC of Manila against respondents, docketed
Release of Claim in favor of petitioner subrogating the latter to as Civil Case No. 184854, demanding payment of the sum of
all his rights to recover on all claims, demands, and rights of P256,643.26 representing the cost of repairs on Cham's
action on account of the loss, damage, or injury sustained as a vehicle.

4
 Art. 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under the
Respondents, however, were declared in default on December preceding article is entirely separate and distinct from the civil
12, 2008 for failure to file their responsive pleading to liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code. But the
petitioner's Complaint despite several opportunities granted by plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or
the MeTC of Manila.8 As a result, petitioner was allowed to omission of the defendant."
present its evidence exparte.
Any aggrieved person can invoke these articles provided he
MeTC ruled in favor of petitioner. proves, by preponderance of evidence, that he has suffered
damage because of the fault or negligence of another. Either
The RTC, however, reversed the ruling of the MeTC. the private complainant or the accused can file a separate civil
action under these articles. There is nothing in the law or rules
On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC's Decision. that state only the private complainant in a criminal case may
invoke these articles.
Hence, the present petition.
Moreover, paragraph 6, Section 1, Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules
ISSUE: on Criminal Procedure ("2000 Rules" for brevity) expressly
WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITIONER, IN FAILING TO requires the accused to litigate his counterclaim in a separate
DISCLOSE THE PENDENCY OF THE CRIMINAL SUIT civil action, to wit:
AGAINST ITS ASSURED CHAM, IS GUILTY OF FORUM "SECTION 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions. - (a) x x x.
SHOPPING?
No counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint may be
RULING: filed by the accused in the criminal case, but any cause of
action which could have been the subject thereof may be
Prefatorily, We address the issue of forum shopping in saying litigated in a separate civil action." (Italics supplied)
that the essence of forum shopping is the filing by a party
against whom an adverse judgment has been rendered in one Since the present Rules require the accused in a criminal
forum, seeking another and possibly a favorable opinion in action to file his counterclaim in a separate civil action,
another suit other than by appeal or special civil action for there can be no forum-shopping if the accused files such
certiorari. It is the act of filing multiple suits involving the same separate civil action.
parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or
successively for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment. Casupanan and Capitulo, however, invoke the ruling in
However, as the RTC already mentioned, there exists no forum Cabaero vs. Cantos12 where the Court held that the accused
shopping herein for the filing of the instant suit is expressly therein could validly institute a separate civil action for quasi-
allowed to proceed independently of the criminal action filed by delict against the private complainant in the criminal case. In
respondents. Cabaero, the accused in the criminal case filed his Answer with
Counterclaim for malicious prosecution. At that time, the Court
In the similar case of Casupanan v. Laroya, wherein as a noted the "absence of clear-cut rules governing the
result of a vehicular accident, a party involved therein filed a prosecution on impliedly instituted civil actions and the
criminal case for reckless imprudence resulting in damage to necessary consequences and implications thereof." Thus, the
property against the other party, who, in turn, filed a civil suit Court ruled that the trial court should confine itself to the
against the party instituting the criminal action, We held that criminal aspect of the case and disregard any counterclaim for
the party filing the separate civil action cannot be liable for civil liability. The Court further ruled that the accused may file a
forum shopping in the following wise: separate civil case against the offended party "after the
criminal case is terminated and/or in accordance with the new
xxx However, there is no forum shopping in the instant case Rules which may be promulgated." The Court explained that a
because the law and the rules expressly allow the filing of a cross-claim, counterclaim or third-party complaint on the civil
separate civil action which can proceed independently of the aspect will only unnecessarily complicate the proceedings and
criminal action. delay the resolution of the criminal case.

Laroya filed the criminal case for reckless imprudence Paragraph 6, Section 1 of the present Rule 111 was
resulting in damage to property based on the Revised incorporated in the 2000 Rules precisely to address the lacuna
Penal Code, while Casupanan and Capitulo filed the civil mentioned in Cabaero. Under this provision, the accused is
action for damages based on Article 2176 of the Civil barred from filing a counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party
Code. Although these two actions arose from the same act complaint in the criminal case. However, the same provision
or omission, they have different causes of action. The states that "any cause of action which could have been the
criminal case is based on culpa criminal punishable under subject (of the counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party
the Revised Penal Code, while the civil case is based on complaint) may be litigated in a separate civil action." The
culpa aquiliana actionable under Articles 2176 and 2177 of present Rule 111 mandates the accused to file his
the Civil Code. These articles on culpa aquiliana read: counterclaim in a separate civil action which shall proceed
independently of the criminal action, even as the civil action of
"Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to the offended party is litigated in the criminal action.
another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for
the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre- On the basis of the foregoing decision, therefore, petitioner,
existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a who is subrogated to the rights of Cham, the accused in the
quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter. criminal case instituted by respondents, cannot be guilty of
forum shopping for its separate civil action is expressly allowed
to proceed independently of the criminal action involved herein.

G.R. No. 186322, July 08, 2015

5
ENRICO S. EULOGIO AND NATIVIDAD V. EULOGIO, MAIN ISSUE:
Petitioners, v. PATERNO C. BELL, SR., ROGELIA
CALINGASAN-BELL, PATERNO WILLIAM BELL, JR., WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITIONERS ARE GUILTY OF
FLORENCE FELICIA VICTORIA BELL, PATERNO FORUM-SHOPPING? NO
FERDINAND BELL III, AND PATERNO BENERAÑO BELL
IV, Respondents.
RULING:
PETITIONERS ARE NOT GUILTY OF FORUM-SHOPPING.
FACTS:
Respondents Paterno William Bell, Jr., Florence Felicia Forum shopping can be committed in three ways: (1) by filing
Victoria Bell, Paterno Ferdinand Bell III, and Paterno Benerano multiple cases based on the same cause of action and with the
IV (the Bell siblings) are the unmarried children of respondent same prayer, the previous case not having been resolved yet
Spouses Paterno C. Bell and Rogelia Calingasan-Bell (where the ground for dismissal is litis pendentia); (2) by filing
(Spouses Bell). In 1995, the Bell siblings lodged a Complaint multiple cases based on the same cause of action and with the
for annulment of documents, reconveyance, quieting of title same prayer, the previous case having been finally resolved
and damages against petitioners Enrico S. Eulogio and (where the ground for dismissal is res judicata); and (3) by
Natividad Eulogio (the Eulogios). It was docketed as Civil Case filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action but
No. 4581 at the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Batangas City, with different prayers, or by splitting of causes of action (where
Branch 84. The Complaint sought the annulment of the the ground for dismissal is also either litis pendentia or res
contract of sale executed by Spouses Bell over their 329- judicata).19chanrobleslaw
square-meter residential house and lot, as well as the
cancellation of the title obtained by petitioners by virtue of the The essence of forum shopping is the filing of multiple suits
Deed. involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either
simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of obtaining a
The RTC granted respondents' prayers, but declared Spouses favorable judgment through means other than by appeal or
Bell liable to petitioners in the amount of PI million plus 12% certiorari.20 Forum shopping does not apply to cases that arise
interest per annum. from an initiatory or original action that has been elevated by
On 9 June 2004 the RTC issued a Writ of Execution, as a way of appeal or certiorari to higher or appellate courts or
result of which respondents' property covered by the newly authorities. This is so because the issues in the appellate
reconstituted Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 54208 courts necessarily differ from those in the lower court, and the
[formerly RT-680 (5997)] was levied on execution. Upon appealed cases are but a continuation of the original case and
motion by respondents, the trial court, on 31 August 2004, treated as only one case.
ordered the lifting of the writ of execution on the ground that
the property was a family home. Respondents contend that the Decision in Civil Case No. 4581,
which declared that property in dispute was a family home, had
Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the lifting of long attained finality. Accordingly, respondents maintain that
the writ of execution. Invoking Article 160 of the Family Code, petitioners' bid to re-litigate the present value of the property in
they posited that the current market value of the property the course of the execution proceedings is barred by res
exceeded the statutory limit of P300,000 considering that it judicata, and that petitioners should be cited for contempt of
was located in a commercial area, and that Spouses Bell had court because of forum-shopping.
even sold it to them for P1 million.7chanrobleslaw
Petitioners' bid to satisfy the above judgment cannot be
The RTC, on 13 October 2004, set the case for hearing to considered an act of forum shopping. Simply, the execution of
determine the present value of the family home of a decision is just the fruit and end of a suit and is very aptly
respondents. It also appointed a Board of Appraisers to called the life of the law. It is not separate from the main case.
conduct a study on the prevailing market value of their house Similarly, the filing of the instant Petition as a continuation of
and lot. the execution proceedings does not constitute forum shopping.
Seeking a reversal of an adverse judgment or order by appeal
Respondents sought reconsideration of the above or certiorari does not constitute forum shopping. Such
directives and asked the RTC to cite petitioners for remedies are sanctioned and provided for by the
contempt because of forum-shopping. They argued that rules.25chanrobleslaw
petitioners' bid to determine the present value of the
subject property was just a ploy to re-litigate an issue that Indeed, as will be presently discussed, the causes of
had long been settled with finality. action in the main proceedings in Civil Case No. 4581 and
the consequent execution proceedings are identical.
On 23 November 2004, respondents filed a Petition for Suffice it to say, however, that the danger of a multiplicity
Certiorari and Injunction before the CA,12 where it was of suits upon one and the same cause of action, which the
docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 87531. judicial policy against forum shopping seeks to prevent,
does not exist in this case.
On 31 July 2008, the CA rendered its Decision granting
respondents' Petition for Certiorari, but it rejected their theory
that res judicata had already set in.
SECOND ISSUE:
The appellate court ruled that the RTC Decision, which had WHETHER OR NOT A HEARING TO DETERMINE THE
become final and executory, only declared respondents' house VALUE OF RESPONDENTS' FAMILY HOME FOR
and lot as a family home. Since the issue of whether it may be PURPOSES OF EXECUTION UNDER ARTICLE 160 OF THE
sold in execution was incidental to the execution of the FAMILY CODE IS BARRED UNDER THE PRINCIPLE OF
aforesaid Decision, there was as yet no res judicata. RES JUDICATA? YES

6
RES JUDICATA RULING: subsequent action. Hence, a party cannot, by varying the form
RE-LITIGATING THE ISSUE OF THE VALUE OF of action or adopting a different method of presenting the case,
RESPONDENTS' FAMILY HOME IS BARRED BY RES escape the operation of the principle that one and the same
JUDICATA. cause of action shall not be twice litigated between the same
parties or their privies.36chanrobleslaw
Res judicata (meaning, a "matter adjudged") is a fundamental
principle of law that precludes parties from re-litigating issues Among several tests resorted to in ascertaining whether two
actually litigated and determined by a prior and final suits relate to a single or common cause of action are: (1)
judgment.26 Under the 1997 Rules of Court, there are two whether the same evidence would support and sustain both
aspects of res judicata, namely: bar by prior judgment and the first and the second causes of action; and (2) whether the
conclusiveness of judgment.28chanrobleslaw defenses in one case may be used to substantiate the
complaint in the other. Also fundamental is the test for
There is "bar by prior judgment" when, as between the first determining whether the cause of action in the second case
case in which the judgment has been rendered and the second existed at the time of the filing of the first
case that is sought to be barred, there is an identity of parties, complaint.37chanrobleslaw
subject matter, and causes of action. In this instance, the
judgment in the first case constitutes an absolute bar to the Applying the above guidelines, the Court finds that the entirety
second action. The judgment or decree on the merits of the of Civil Case No. 4581 - including the bid of petitioners to
court of competent jurisdiction concludes the litigation between execute the money judgment awarded to them by the trial court
the parties, as well as their privies, and constitutes a bar to a - is founded on a common cause of action. Records show that
new action or suit involving the same cause of action before the sole evidence submitted by petitioners during the execution
the same or any other tribunal. proceedings was the Deed of Sale, which the trial court had
nullified in the main proceedings. Concomitantly, the very
On the other hand, there is "conclusiveness of judgment" same defense raised by petitioners in the main proceedings,
where there is an identity of parties in the first and second i.e., that they had bought the property from Spouses Bell for P1
cases, but no identity of causes of action. Under this rule, the million - was utilized to substantiate the claim that the current
first judgment is conclusive only as to those matters actually value of respondents' family home was actually PI million. In
and directly controverted and determined and not as to matters fact, the trial court's order for respondents' family home to be
merely involved therein. Stated differently, any right, fact, or levied on execution was solely based on the price stated in the
matter in issue directly adjudicated or necessarily involved in nullified Deed of Sale.
the determination of an action before a competent court in
which judgment is rendered on the merits is conclusively Res judicata applies, considering that the parties are
settled by the judgment therein and cannot again be litigated litigating over the same property. Moreover, the same
between the parties and their privies whether or not the claim, contentions and evidence advanced by the petitioners to
demand, purpose, or subject matter of the two actions is the substantiate their claim over respondents' family home
same. have already been used to support their arguments in the
main proceedings.
"Cause of action" is the act or omission by which a party
violates the right of another. It may be argued that the cause of Any lingering doubt on the application of res judicata to this
action in the main proceedings was the sale of the property in case should be put to rest by the trial court's discussion of the
dispute, while in the execution proceedings it was the nature and alienability of the property in dispute, to wit:
indebtedness of Spouses Bell to petitioners.
The second issue is about the allegation of the plaintiffs that
The settled rule, however, is that identity of causes of action the family home which has been constituted on the house and
does not mean absolute identity. Otherwise, a party could lot in question is exempt from alienation and that its value does
easily escape the operation of res judicata by changing the not exceed P300,000. Paterno Bell, Sr. testified that the two-
form of the action or the relief sought. The test to determine storey house was built in 1947 and was made of wood and
whether the causes of action are identical is to ascertain hollow blocks. He inherited it in 1976 from his parents and has
whether the same evidence will sustain both actions, or been living there with his family. In 1976, when an extra-judicial
whether there is an identity of the facts essential to the settlement was made of the estate of his parents, the fair
maintenance of the two actions. If the same facts or evidence market value of the house was P70,000.
would sustain both, the two actions are considered the same,
and a judgment in the first case would be a bar to the
G.R. No. 173186, September 16, 2015 name in the Register of Deeds of North Cotabato.4 Two of
these subdivided lots, Lots No. 54-B-8 (LRC) Psd 173106 and
ANICETO UY, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS, No. 54-B-9 (LRC) Psd 173106, covered by TCTs No. T-58334
MINDANAO STATION, CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY, and No. T-58335,5 respectively, are the subject of this case.
CARMENCITA NAVAL-SAI, REP. BY HER ATTORNEY-IN
FACT RODOLFO FLORENTINO, Respondents. Subsequently, Naval-Sai sold Lot No. 54-B-76 (LRC) Psd
173106 to a certain Bobby Adil on installment, on the condition
that the absolute deed of sale will be executed only upon full
payment. Adil failed to pay the amortization, forcing him to sell
FACTS: his unfinished building on the property to spouses Francisco
and Louella Omandac.7cralawrednad
In 1979, private respondent Carmencita Naval-Sai (Naval-Sai)
acquired ownership of a parcel of land described as Lot No. Meanwhile, Naval-Sai borrowed money from a certain Grace
54-B (LRC) Psd 39172 and covered by Transfer Certificate of Ng. As security, Naval-Sai delivered to Ng TCTs No. T-58334
Title (TCT) No. T-19586 from her brother. The land was later and No. T-58335 covering Lots No. 54-B-8 and No. 54-B-9,
subdivided, with the corresponding titles issued in Naval-Sai's respectively. Ng, on the other hand, borrowed money from

7
petitioner and also delivered to the latter the two titles to
guarantee payment of the loan.8cralawrednad RULING:

Sometime thereafter, Naval-Sai learned that petitioner filed a THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE
case for recovery of possession (Civil Case No. 1007) against WITH THE REQUIREMENTS ON
Francisco Omandac. Branch 17 of the Regional Trial Court CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM
(RTC) in Kidapawan City ruled in favor of petitioner.9 Naval- SHOPPING.
Sai filed a motion for new trial before the Court of Appeals,
arguing that her signature in the purported deed of sale A certification against forum shopping is a peculiar and
presented in the case between her and petitioner was a personal responsibility of the party, an assurance given to the
forgery. Civil Case No. I007, however, became final and court or other tribunal that there are no other pending cases
executory in 2001.10 The spouses Omandac were ejected involving basically the same parties, issues and causes of
from the property and petitioner gained possession of the action.28 It must be executed by the party-pleader, not by his
same.11cralawrednad counsel. If, however, for reasonable or justifiable reasons, the
party-pleader is unable to sign, he must execute a Special
In July 1999, Naval-Sai filed a Complaint for Annulment of Power of Attorney (SPA) designating his counsel of record to
Deed with Damages12 before the same Branch 17 of the RTC sign on his behalf.29cralawrednad
in Kidapawan City against petitioner. The subject of the
complaint was the deed of sale allegedly executed between Here, the original complaint contained a proper
Naval-Sai and petitioner involving Lots No. 54-B-8 and No. 54- verification and certification against forum shopping duly
B-9. Naval-Sai prayed that the deed of sale be declared null signed by Naval-Sai as plaintiff. The verification and
and void ab initio because the alleged sale between her and certification in the amended complaint, on the other hand, was
petitioner was a forgery. Naval-Sai argued that she never sold only signed by her counsel, Atty. Norberta L. Ela. Atty. Ela was
the lots and that her signature in the purported deed of sale is not authorized to sign on behalf of Naval-Sai, as in fact, she
spurious. assigned one Rodolfo Florentino as agent. The Court of
Appeals pointed out that in the certification in the amended
Naval-Sai filed an Amended Complaint13 dated July 29, 1999. complaint, Atty. Ela specified that it should be taken and read
She asserted that the subject TCTs were already cancelled by together with the original complaint. The Court of Appeals took
virtue of the deed of sale. TCT No. T-62446 was issued in lieu this as a cautionary move on the part of Naval-Sai, justifying
of TCT No. T-58334 and TCT No. T-62447 replaced TCT No. the relaxation of the rules on the ground of substantial
T-58335. Hence, the Amended Complaint added as a relief the compliance. We find, however, that this cautionary move is
declaration of TCTs No. T-62446 and No. T-62447, which were ineffectual because under the Rules of Civil Procedure, an
registered in the name of petitioner, as null and void ab initio. amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. For all
Unlike the original complaint, however, the Amended intents and purposes, therefore, the original complaint and its
Complaint was not signed by Naval-Sai, but by her counsel. verification and certification ceased to exist. This,
notwithstanding, we find there was still substantial compliance
In his Answer with Counterclaim14 dated October 4, 1999, with the Rules.
petitioner specifically denied that the two TCTs were delivered
to him by Ng as a guaranty for payment of her loan. Petitioner In the case of Far Eastern Shipping Company v. Court of
claimed that he and Naval-Sai entered into a valid contract of Appeals, while we said that, strictly, a certification against
sale in 1981 and that the lots were sold for value. The forum shopping by counsel is a defective certification, the
corresponding TCTs were issued in his name shortly thereafter verification, signed by petitioner's counsel in said case, is
and since then, he had been in complete control of the substantial compliance because it served the purpose of the
properties. When Francisco Omandac constructed a house in Rules of informing the Court of the pendency of another action
one of the properties, petitioner filed Civil Case No. 1007. or proceeding involving the same issues. We then explained
that procedural rules are instruments in the speedy and
Petitioner also raised special and affirmative defenses of, efficient administration of justice which should be used to
among others, non-compliance with the requisite certification of achieve such end and not to derail it.
non-forum shopping and prescription. He asserted that
jurisdiction has never been acquired over the parties and the We also find that the prima facie merits of the case serve
subject matter because the certification against forum as a special circumstance or a compelling reason to relax
shopping in the Amended Complaint was defective, for having the rules on certification against forum shopping.
been merely signed by Naval-Sai's counsel. He further claimed
that the action for annulment of deed of sale is already barred In Sy Chin v. Court of Appeals, we recognized the flaw in the
by the statute of limitations and that Naval-Sai is guilty of certification against forum shopping which was signed only by
estoppel and laches. the counsel, and not by the party. In LDP Marketing, Inc. v.
Monter, there was initially no proof that the one who signed
The RTC dismissed the complaint on the grounds of the certification was authorized to do so in behalf of the
prescription and a defective certification against forum corporation. In these two cases, we nonetheless chose to
shopping. overlook the procedural lapses in the interest of substantial
justice and the existence of prima facie merit in the petitions.
The Court of Appeals set aside the order of the RTC in the now
assailed Decision20 dated January 26, 2006. We have ruled that the general rule is that non-compliance
or a defect in the certification is not curable by its
subsequent submission or correction. However, there are
ISSUE: cases where we exercised leniency and relaxed the rules
WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL on the ground of substantial compliance, the presence of
COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS ON special circumstances or compelling reasons. The rules
CERTIFICATION FOR NON-FORUM SHOPPING? YES on forum-shopping are designed to promote and facilitate

8
the orderly administration of justice and "should not be rules of procedure which is to achieve substantial justice
interpreted with such absolute literalness as to subve1i its as expeditiously as possible."
own ultimate and legitimate objective or the goal of all