Valid Jurat and Proper Verification: Lessons from William Go Que Construction v. CA

The Supreme Court’s 2016 decision in William Go Que Construction and/or William Go Que v. Court of Appeals and Danny Singson, et al. (G.R. No. 191699) is a pointed reminder that procedural rules—especially those on verification and certification against forum shopping—cannot be brushed aside. For litigants and lawyers, the case clarifies what makes a jurat valid and why the identity of the person signing a pleading must be properly established.

The Case: A Labor Dispute That Turned Procedural

Four workers filed illegal dismissal complaints against William Go Que Construction. The Labor Arbiter ruled in their favor, but the NLRC reversed on appeal, finding the workers had stolen from their employer. The workers then went to the Court of Appeals (CA) via a petition for certiorari.

The problem: the verification and certification against non-forum shopping attached to their petition had a defective jurat. The notarial certificate did not state how the notary public identified the affiants—whether they were personally known to the notary or presented competent evidence of identity.

The CA allowed the workers to cure the defect. They submitted photocopies of private subdivision IDs and a joint affidavit from three co-petitioners attesting to the identity of a fourth who could not be located. The CA accepted these as sufficient. The employer disagreed and elevated the matter to the Supreme Court.

The Issue: What Makes a Jurat Valid?

The core question was whether the CA gravely abused its discretion in refusing to dismiss the petition despite the defective verification and certification.

Under Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, verification requires an affidavit that the affiant has read the pleading and that its allegations are true based on personal knowledge or authentic records. A pleading lacking proper verification is treated as unsigned.

Section 5, Rule 7 requires the plaintiff or principal party to certify under oath that no other action involving the same issues is pending in another forum. Failure to comply with the certification requirement is not curable by mere amendment and is a ground for dismissal.

The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice

The Court turned to the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC). Under these rules, a jurat requires that the individual appears in person before the notary public, is personally known to the notary or identified through competent evidence of identity, signs the document in the notary’s presence, and takes an oath or affirmation.

The rules define "competent evidence of identity" as at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the individual’s photograph and signature—such as a passport, driver’s license, PRC ID, or SSS card. Alternatively, it may be the oath of one credible witness not privy to the transaction who is personally known to the notary, or two credible witnesses who each show documentary identification. Note that the exact text of these provisions is not reproduced in the library consulted for this article; the description here follows the Supreme Court’s own summary in the decision.

Why the CA Erred

The photocopies of the workers’ IDs from La Vista Association, Inc., R.O. Barra Builders & Electrical Services, and St. Charbel Executive Village were not documents issued by an official agency. They did not qualify as competent evidence of identity.

Likewise, the joint affidavit identifying the missing co-petitioner was insufficient. The affiants themselves were privy to the instrument—the verification and certification—so they could not serve as credible witnesses under the rules.

The Court also noted that the notarial certificate did not state whether the affiants were personally known to the notary or presented competent evidence of identity. It cannot be presumed that an affiant is personally known to the notary; the jurat must say so.

Substantial Compliance Was Not Enough

The Court acknowledged that a defective verification does not automatically make a pleading fatally defective; courts may allow correction if circumstances warrant. However, substantial compliance requires that someone with ample knowledge actually swore to the truth of the allegations.

Here, the Court could not ascertain that any of the workers actually swore to the petition’s truth because their identities were never properly established. The certification against forum shopping likewise failed—there was no assurance that anyone certified under oath that no similar action was pending elsewhere.

Compounding the problem, the employer had raised serious questions about forged signatures, particularly of the missing co-petitioner. The CA ignored these red flags and simply accepted the insufficient submissions.

Practical Takeaways

• A valid jurat must state the basis of the notary’s identification of the affiant. Either the affiant is personally known to the notary or presented competent evidence of identity—and the jurat must reflect this.
• Private IDs do not count as competent evidence of identity. Only current IDs issued by official agencies (passport, driver’s license, PRC ID, SSS card, etc.) qualify under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
• Co-parties cannot vouch for each other’s identity in a verification. A witness must not be privy to the instrument being notarized.
• A defective certification against forum shopping is harder to cure than a defective verification. It generally requires compelling reasons or special circumstances to relax the rule.
• Procedural rules exist for a reason. Liberal application is the exception, not the rule. Parties seeking leniency must show reasonable cause and that dismissal would defeat substantial justice.

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