A filed a complaint for breach of contract against XYZ Entertainment Company. A’s verification contained a single statement that she attests to the truth and correctness of the allegations in the complaint based on her personal knowledge or on authentic documents. XYZ Entertainment Company prayed that the complaint be dismissed due to its “defective verification”. Decide with reason(s).
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
XYZ Entertainment Company's prayer to dismiss the complaint should be denied.
Under Rule 7, Section 4 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, a proper verification must attest that the pleading is true and correct based on personal knowledge or authentic documents, is not filed to harass or delay, and has evidentiary support. However, a defect in verification is merely a formal, non-jurisdictional requirement and not a ground for automatic dismissal.
Here, A's verification is defective for omitting the required attestations that the complaint is not filed for harassment or delay and has evidentiary support. Nevertheless, because verification is a formal defect, the court should not outrightly dismiss the complaint but instead allow A the opportunity to correct it.
Therefore, the prayer for dismissal must be denied, and the court should direct A to submit a compliant verification.
This is not an official scoring system and carries no weight with the Supreme Court or any bar review provider. It measures how much of the suggested answer's wording your response covers, not whether your reasoning is correct. For practice only.
Quick check
How should the court rule on XYZ Entertainment Company's prayer to dismiss the complaint due to a defective verification?
Verification is a formal, non-jurisdictional requirement, so a defect therein does not warrant automatic dismissal without giving the plaintiff an opportunity to correct it.
Which of the following is NOT a required statement in a proper verification under Rule 7, Section 4 of the Rules of Civil Procedure?
Rule 7, Section 4 specifies attestations regarding personal knowledge/authentic documents, lack of intent to harass/delay, and evidentiary support, but does not require an attestation on filing fees.
What is the legal effect of a defective verification on a complaint filed before a trial court?
Defective verification is a formal defect rather than a jurisdictional one, meaning it can be corrected upon order of the court.
Why does Philippine procedural law liberally construe rules governing the verification of pleadings?
Rules on verification are liberally construed so that technical oversights do not override substantial justice and the resolution of cases on their merits.
What is the proper course of action for a court when presented with a pleading containing an incomplete verification?
The proper judicial action for a formal defect in verification is to direct the party to submit a corrected verification rather than dismissing the suit.
Learn more about these topics
1. Verification Requirements
Under Rule 7, Section 4 of the 2019 Amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure, a verification requires a specific attestation. The affiant must state under oath that the pleading is true and correct based on personal knowledge or authentic documents, that it is not filed to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase litigation costs, and that the factual allegations have evidentiary support. Omission of any of these required statements renders the verification defective under procedural rules.
2. Formal Defect
Verification is a formal requirement intended to ensure good faith in pleadings, but it is not jurisdictional. A defect in verification does not automatically deprive the court of jurisdiction over the subject matter or person. Courts liberally construe rules regarding verification to serve the ends of substantial justice, preferring to resolve cases on their merits rather than dismissing complaints on purely technical or formal deficiencies.
3. Substantial Compliance
When a complaint suffers from a defective verification, the proper judicial remedy is not immediate dismissal. Courts routinely grant the party an opportunity to cure the formal defect by submitting a corrected or amended verification within a reasonable period. Outright dismissal is justified only if the party refuses to comply with a court order to correct the deficiency or demonstrates willful disregard for procedural rules.