Certification of Non-Forum Shopping: All Petitioners Must Sign or Show Authority

The Rule on Certification Against Forum Shopping

Every initiatory pleading filed in Philippine courts must be accompanied by a certification against forum shopping. This document, executed under oath, assures the court that the party has not filed any other action involving the same issues in another court or tribunal, and that no similar case is pending elsewhere. The rule exists to prevent the waste of judicial resources and to stop parties from seeking contradictory rulings in different forums.

The Supreme Court's decision in Philippine Valve Mfg. Company v. National Labor Relations Commission (G.R. No. 152304, November 12, 2004) clarifies a frequent point of confusion: when a case has multiple petitioners, each one must sign the certification—or at least prove that one signatory was duly authorized to act for the others.

Facts of the Case

Teresita N. An filed an illegal dismissal case against Philippine Valve Manufacturing Company (PVMC) and its officer, Engr. Rene B. Galera. The labor arbiter ruled that PVMC was not guilty of illegal dismissal but nonetheless ordered it to pay severance pay to An, who had served the company for ten years. The individual charges against Galera were dismissed.

PVMC and Galera appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission, which affirmed the labor arbiter's decision. They then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. However, the certification against non-forum shopping attached to that petition was signed only by Galera. PVMC, the corporate petitioner, did not show any board resolution or other document proving that Galera was authorized to sign on its behalf.

The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for this defect. PVMC and Galera elevated the matter to the Supreme Court, arguing that PVMC was a general partnership, not a corporation, and that Galera's signature should suffice.

The Supreme Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal. The Court cited Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, which requires that certify under oath that no other action involving the same issues has been commenced or is pending. The rule applies to all juridical entities, whether corporations or partnerships, since every such entity necessarily has an officer or representative who can act on its behalf.

The Court explained that when there are two or more petitioners, a petition signed by only one of them is defective unless that person was expressly authorized by the co-parties to represent them and to sign the certification. The signatory must have personal knowledge of whether the other parties have filed similar cases. This knowledge cannot be presumed.

The petitioners argued that a partner had executed an affidavit attesting to Galera's authority, but this affidavit was attached only to their motion for reconsideration before the Court of Appeals. The Court rejected this as insufficient, citing prior rulings that substantial compliance is not enough in matters requiring strict observance of procedural rules. To merit leniency, a party must show reasonable cause for the failure to personally sign the certification and must convince the court that dismissal would defeat the ends of justice. No such compelling reason was shown in this case.

Why This Matters for Litigants

The case underscores a practical point for anyone filing a case in the Philippines. The certification against non-forum shopping is not a mere formality. It is a jurisdictional requirement, and failure to comply can result in the outright dismissal of the case, regardless of its merits.

For corporations, partnerships, or any group of co-petitioners, the safest course is to have every party sign the certification. If that is not possible, the signing party must attach clear proof of authority—such as a board resolution or a notarized special power of attorney—at the time the petition is filed, not later.

Practical Takeaways

• Every petitioner in a case must sign the certification against non-forum shopping, or provide proof that one signatory is authorized to act for all.
• For corporations, a board resolution or secretary's certificate is typically required to show such authority. Partnerships must show similar proof of representation.
• Attaching an affidavit of authority only in a motion for reconsideration is too late; the defect may already be fatal.
• The rule applies to all initiatory pleadings, including petitions for certiorari before the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court.
• Strict compliance is required. Courts will not excuse the defect absent a compelling reason and a showing that dismissal would defeat the administration of justice.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.