This is based on Sec. 1 of Rule 7 that provides: ‘The title of the action indicates the names of the parties. They shall all be named in the original complaint or petition,’ but in subsequent pleadings, it shall be sufficient if the name of the first party on each side be stated with an appropriate indication when there are other parties. ” In Galling, et al. V. Roars, G. R. No. 147969, Jan. 17, 2005, the caption of the complaint: ” Heirs of Marino Roars, represented why Reginald S.
Roars, as plaintiffs” was held insufficient because it did not state the names of the heirs of Marino Roars, b) Body, The body of the pleading sets forth its designation, the allegations to the par’s claims or defenses, the relief prayed for, and the date f the pleading. C) Signature. Every pleading must be signed by the party or his council. D) Address. The address is required for service of pleadings, judgments, etc. , and therefore it should not be a post office box. E) Verification. But pleadings need not be verified, unless specifically required by law or rule. ) Certification against forum shopping. This certification is required in complaints or other initiatory pleadings. 2. How is a pleading verified? A pleading is verified b y an affidavit that the faint has read the pleading and that the allegations therein are true and correct of his personal knowledge or eased on authentic records. Verification based on “information and belief’ or on ‘knowledge, information and belief’ is insufficient. (Rule 7, Sec. 4) 3. What pleadings, petitions, or applications are required to be verified?
The following are required to be verified: a) All pleadings allowed to be filed in cases governed by the Rule on Summary Procedure; b) Petition for Certiorari; c) Petition for Prohibition; d) Petition for Mandamus; e) Petition for Quo Warrant, f) Complaint for Expropriation; g) Petition tort Contempt, when the proceeding for contempt is initiated other Han by the court motto priori; h) Petition for Review to be filed with the Court of Appeals Linden Rule 42; i) Petition for Review on Certiorari to be tiled with the Supreme Court under Rule 45; j) Petition for Relief from judgment; k) Application for the Issuance of a TROT and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction; l) Application for Receivership; m) Application for Support Pendent Elite; n) Petition for Change of Name; o) Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; p) Petition for Writ Of Impart; q) Petition for Writ of Habeas Data; r) Petition for Cancellation or Correction Of Entries in the Civil Registry; QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS IN REMEDIAL LAW s) Petition for Constitution of Family Home; t) Petition for Annulment of Judgment; u) Petition for Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriage; v) Petition for Annulment of Avoidable Marriage; w) Petition tort Legal Separation x) Petition for Guardianship off Minor. 4. Section 3, Rule 7 requires that a “pleading must be signed by the party or counsel representing him xx x. ” What is the nature of counsel’s authority and duty to sign a pleading?
Counsel’s authority and duty to sign a pleading is personal to him; therefore, he cannot delegate such authority to just any person. Republic of the Philippines Generic Development Corporation, GA No. 149576, Gag. 8, 2006. ) Thus, a pleading signed by a person other than the party of his counsel may be treated as an unsigned pleading that produces no legal effect. (Sec Rule 7. ) 5. When may a pleading be treated as an unsigned pleading? A pleading requires to be verified Which contains a verification based on Information and belief,” or upon wangled, information and belief,” or lacks a proper verification, shall be treated as an unsigned pleading. (Rule 7, Sec. 4) 6. What is the effect of an unsigned pleading?
An unsigned pleading produces no legal effect. The court may, however. Allow such deficiency to be remedied if it appears that the same was due to mere inadvertence and not intended for delay. (Rule 7, Sec. 3) 7. What is the effect of a complaint filed by one who claims to represent a party as plaintiff but who, in fact, is not authorized to do so? It has no legal effect. In Manila International Airport Authority V, Riviera Village Less Homeowners Association, Inc. , GAR. No. 143870, Septet. 30, 2005, the Supreme Court, citing Aaron V, Realer, GAR. No. 159156, Jan. 31, 2005, said: ‘The party bringing suit has the ruder to proving the sufficiency to the representative character that he claims.
If a complaint is filed by one who claims to represent a party as plaintiff but who, in fact, is not authorized to do so, such complaint is not deemed filed and the court does not acquire jurisdiction over the complaint, It must be stressed that an unauthorized complaint does not produce any legal effect. ” 8. In relation to pleadings, what are the grounds upon which a party’s counsel may be subjected to appropriate disciplinary action? The grounds are: a) If he deliberately files an unsigned pleading: b) If he signs a pleading in violation of the rule; ) If he alleges scandalous or indecent matter in the pleading; d) If he fails to promptly report to the court a change Of his address. Rule 7, Sec. 3) 9. Defendant filed a motion for extension Of time to file answer. He, himself, signed his own motion. The court denied defendants motion on the ground that Without the signature Of a lawyer thereon it was a mere scrap Of paper that did not deserve any attention. Is the court correct? No, the court is not correct. A party may sue or defend an action pro SE because the rule allows him to sign his own pleading. Rule 7, Section 3 provides that every pleading must be signed y the party or counsel representing him. 10. What does a counsel’s signature on a pleading constitute? (or, What is the significance off counsel’s signature on a pleading?
The signature of counsel constitutes a certificate by him that he has read the pleading: that to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief there is a good ground to support it; and that it is not interposed for delay. (Rule 7, Sec. 3) 11. When is there forum shopping? There is forum shopping whenever, as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion (other than by appeal or certiorari) in another. The principle applies not only with respect to suits filed in the courts but also in connection with litigation commenced in the courts while an administrative proceeding is pending in order to defeat administrative processes and in anticipation of an unfavorable administrative ruling and a favorable court ruling. (Villainies V. Dare, G. R. No. 80863, April 1989 [172 SCRAP 8761. Forum shopping is an act Of malpractice that is proscribed and condemned as trifling with the courts and abusing their processes. It is improper conduct that tends to degrade the administration Of discrimination Of justice. (Bone, Inc. NEE G. R. No. 93924, Jan. 23, 1991 [193 SCRAP 251 01. ) In Philippine woman’s Christian Temperance union, Inc. V. Biretta House Of Friendship, Inc. , G. R. NO. 125571 July 22, 1998 (292 SCRAP 785), it was held that forum shopping exists where the elements of lilts vendetta are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to re judicial in another. 12 A writ of preliminary injunction was issued by the ROTC.
The defendant against whom the writ was issued went to the CA and questioned the propriety of the issuance of the writ. Then, the defendant filed a motion with the ROTC to lift the writ. Is defendant’s motion tenable? No. After the question of whether the writ should be annulled was elevated to the CA, the ROTC has lost jurisdiction to act on attendant’s motion. In tact, by filing a motion with the ROTC to lift the writ, defendant himself tried to render his petition with the CA moot and academic. In so doing, defendant showed his disrespect towards the court and is guilty of forum shopping. Outsmart Carp, v. CA, C,R_ No. 88705, June 1 1, 1992. ) 13.
The rule requires that a complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief must be accompanied by a sworn certification may either be contained therein or annexed thereto. Suppose plaintiff failed to comply with this requirement, can he amend his complaint so as to incorporate therein the certification against forum shopping? No. Failure to comply with the requirement of certification against forum shopping is not curable by amendment of the complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of the case. Such dismissal, however, is 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 institute indirect contempt of court, oviduct 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. (Rule 7, Sec. 5. ) Please note that if the dismissal is without prejudice, the complaint may be refilled. Of course, this time, the pleader must already comply with the requirement of certification on non-forum shopping. Under SC Administrative Circulars No’s. 4-94 and 28-91 the complaint and other initiatory pleadings referred to are the original civil complaint, counterclaim, cross-claim, third (fourth, etc. )-party complaint, complaint-in-intervention, petition, or application wherein a party asserts his claim for relief. Note, however, that compulsory counterclaim does not require a certification on Nan-forum shopping. 14. Suppose the plaintiff files a complaint without a certification on non-forum shopping, may he cure the defect by submitting the required certification after the filing of the complaint? No, lack f certification on non-forum shopping is not curable by submission thereof after the filing of the complaint or initiatory pleading. (Icy v _ Land bank, C,R_ No, 136100, July 24, 200. ) Blitz, in Loyola v.
CA, 245 SCRAP 477 (1395), the filing of the certification on Nan-forum shopping one day after the filing of an election protest was considered substantial compliance with the requirement In Roadway Express, Inc. U. CA 264 SCRAP 696 SCRAP (1 996), the Supreme Court allowed the filing of the certification on non-forum shopping 14 days before the CA dismisses the petition for review. In Ay Landmark, Go. NO. 136100, July 24, 2000, the Court had dismissed ours petition for lack of verification and certification on non- forum shopping. It, however, reinstated the petition after Clay Submitted a motion to admit the certification on non-forum shopping. In Shipped Inc. V. CA, G. R. No. 143377, Feb.. 0, 2001, when petitioner’s resident manager, Balling filed the petition, there was no proof attached thereto that Balling was authorized to sign the verification was dismissed. After the dismissal, the petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, attaching thereto a certificate issued by the board secretary hat ten days prior to the filing of the petition, Balling had been authorized to file the petition. It was pointed out that in Loyola, Roadway, and ay, there were special circumstances or compelling reasons that justified the relaxation tooth rule, In Shipped, the merit’s of petitioners case constitute special circumstances or compelling reasons that justify tempering the requirement to certification on Nan-forum shopping.
IS, The certification on non-forum shopping contains certain Linden-takings to be performed by the party signing it, such as: if there is another action or claim pending between the same parties, he must make a omelet statement of the present status thereof; and, it he should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall report that fact voting five days therefore to the court in which the complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed. Failure to comply with any of the undertakings constitute violation of the prohibition against forum shopping. What is the difference between failure to comply with the certification requirement and violation of the prohibition against forum shopping?
Failure to comply with the certification requirement is merely a cause for dismissal, thou prejudice, of the complaint or the initiatory pleading; while, violation Of the prohibition against forum shopping is a ground for summary dismissal of the complaint or initiatory pleading, and it constitutes direct contempt. (the United Residents Of Dominican Hill, Inc. V. Commission on the Settlement Of Land Problems, G. R. No. 135945, March 7, 2001 16. P sued D for damages. In his answer, D pleaded a compulsory counterclaim for moral and exemplary damages by reason of the unfounded suit filed against him. P moved to dismiss the compulsory counterclaim on the ground that said counterclaim is not accompanied by a certification against forum shopping. The trial court dismissed the counterclaim. Is the dismissal correct?
What is the remedy of the defendant? Answer to the First Question: no, the dismissal is not correct, The rule requiring certification against forum shopping has not been contemplated to include a compulsory counterclaim because this kind of counterclaim can only be properly pleaded in an answer. (Santos Thomas University Hospital v. Surly, G. R. No. 129718, Gag. 17, 1998 [294 SCRAP 3821; Poinciana v. Parental, G. R. No. 133284, May 9, 2000. ) Answer to the Second Question: Ordinarily, the remedy of the defendant hose counterclaim is dismissed is to appeal from the order of dismissal. This is because an order dismissing a counterclaim is a final order.
However, in the problem presented, the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 would be an appropriate remedy because appeal would be ineffective if not futile considering that not a single piece of evidence has yet been presented. At this point, it may also be mentioned that application for search warrant does not require certification against forum shopping. (Savage v. Tapping, G. R. NO. 134217, May 11, 200. ) Also, a case pending before the Ombudsman cannot be considered or purposes Of determining forum shopping as the power Of the Ombudsman is only investigative in character and its resolution cannot constitute a valid and final judgment because its duty is to file the appropriate case before the Sandbagging. (Seville v. League, A. M. No. ART-01-1612, Gag. 14, 2001 J 17.
The rule in Section 1, Rule 17 is that the Plaintiff may dismiss his complaint by filing a notice of dismissal at any time before service of the answer or of a motion for summary judgment. As a general rule, such dismissal is without prejudice. Suppose P filed a complaint against D, and before service of the answer or of action tort summary judgment, P caused the dismissal of his complaint by filing a notice of dismissal. Months later, p files the same complaint against D. In the certification on non-torus shopping appended to the second complaint, p failed to mention about the prior filing and dismissal of the first 15 Up’s failure to mention about the prior filing and dismissal of the first case fatal?