Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping: Why All Petitioners Must Sign

In Philippine litigation, a case with strong merits can still be dismissed on a purely procedural ground. One of the most common—and most fatal—mistakes involves the verification and certification against forum shopping required for pleadings. The Supreme Court's decision in Nellie Vda. De Formoso v. Philippine National Bank shows how a single missing signature can end a case before it is ever heard on the merits.

What Verification and Certification Require

The Rules of Court impose two distinct requirements on parties filing pleadings.

Verification (Rule 7, Section 4) is a sworn statement that the affiant has read the pleading and that its allegations are true based on personal knowledge or authentic records. It is not always mandatory—the rule states that pleadings need not be verified unless a law or rule specifically requires it—but when required, it must be properly executed.

Certification against forum shopping (Rule 7, Section 5) is a stricter requirement. The plaintiff or principal party must swear that no other action involving the same issues is pending in any court or tribunal, and must report any similar case filed later within five days. The rule is explicit: failure to comply "shall not be curable by mere amendment" and shall be cause for dismissal.

For petitions for certiorari, these requirements are incorporated through Rule 65, Section 1, which governs this extraordinary remedy.

The Multiple-Petitioner Rule

When a case involves several petitioners, the certification becomes more complicated. The Supreme Court has settled this rule: all petitioners must sign the certification against forum shopping.

The Court explained why: the certification requires personal knowledge of whether any co-petitioner has filed a similar case elsewhere. One petitioner cannot be presumed to know what the others have done. As the Court has stated, the lone signing petitioner cannot be presumed to have personal knowledge of the filing or non-filing by co-petitioners of any similar action.

What Happened in Formoso v. PNB

The case began when Nellie Vda. De Formoso and her children sought to settle a loan with Philippine National Bank (PNB), secured by a real estate mortgage. They later sold the mortgaged properties to Primitivo Malcaba, who held their special power of attorney. When Malcaba tried to pay the loan, PNB allegedly refused to accept payment and release the mortgage.

The petitioners won in the Regional Trial Court, which ordered PNB to accept payment. However, their claim for damages was denied. When they elevated the damages issue to the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari, only Malcaba signed the verification and certification against forum shopping. The other petitioners—the Formosos—did not.

The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, citing the rule that all petitioners must sign unless the signatory is authorized by the others. The Supreme Court affirmed.

The Court emphasized that certiorari is an extraordinary remedy "never issued as a matter of right." A party seeking it must strictly observe the rules. The Court found no compelling reason to relax the requirement, especially since Malcaba was not shown to be authorized to sign for the Formosos, nor could he have personal knowledge of their potential forum shopping activities.

Why Courts Enforce This Strictly

The certification requirement exists to prevent forum shopping—the practice of filing the same case in multiple courts to increase the chance of a favorable ruling. This wastes judicial resources, clogs dockets, and risks conflicting judgments. Courts therefore treat the certification as a mandatory requirement, not a mere formality.

The Formoso ruling also rejected arguments that technicalities should yield to the merits of a case. While courts may occasionally apply the rules liberally, they will not do so without compelling reasons. A missing signature, without proper authorization, is not such a reason.

Practical Takeaways

• All petitioners must sign. In any case with multiple plaintiffs or petitioners, every party must sign the verification and certification against forum shopping.
• An SPA can substitute—but only if explicit. If one person signs for others, attach a special power of attorney clearly authorizing that person to execute the verification and certification on their behalf.
• No presumption of knowledge. A co-petitioner cannot sign for others because the certification requires personal knowledge of each party's litigation history.
• The defect is not curable by amendment. Unlike some procedural errors, a defective certification cannot be fixed by simply amending the pleading.
• Certiorari demands strict compliance. Special civil actions like certiorari are extraordinary remedies, and courts require parties to follow every rule precisely.

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