Tailors Toto, Nelson and Yenyen filed a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 from an adverse decision of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) on the complaint for illegal dismissal against Empire Textile Corporation. They were terminated on the ground that they failed to meet the prescribed production quota at least four (4) times. The NLRC decision was assailed in a special civil action under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals (CA). In the verification and certification against forum shopping, only Toto signed the verification and certification, while Atty. Arman signed for Nelson. Empire filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of defective verification and certification. Decide with reasons. (5%)
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
The Motion to Dismiss filed by Empire Textile Corporation should be DENIED. Under Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court and settled jurisprudence (Basan v. Coca-Cola Bottlers), while a certification against forum
Unlock the full Remedial Law answers365 days of full access. GCash, Maya and card accepted.
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
What is the general rule regarding the execution of a certification against forum shopping in a multi-petitioner complaint?
As a general rule, a certification against forum shopping must be signed personally by all the petitioners.
When does the signature of only one petitioner on a certification against forum shopping constitute substantial compliance?
Execution by one petitioner constitutes substantial compliance if all petitioners share a common interest and cause of action.
Why is a verification requirement in a court pleading generally treated by courts as a formal rather than jurisdictional defect?
Verification is a formal requirement intended to ensure that the allegations in a pleading are true and correct.
Can an attorney validly sign a certification against forum shopping on behalf of a client without a special power of attorney?
Choices available with full access.
What is the legal effect on a Rule 65 petition if co-employees share a common cause of action and only one signs the certification against forum shopping?
Choices available with full access.
Learn more about these topics
1. Verification and Certification
Under Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, pleadings must be verified by an affidavit stating that the affiant has read the pleading and that the allegations are true and correct. In addition, the principal party must execute a sworn certification against forum shopping certifying under oath that no other similar action or claim has been filed or is pending in any court or tribunal. While verification is a formal requirement, certification against forum shopping is mandatory and strict compliance is generally required to prevent non-compliance and multi-forum litigation.
2. Substantial Compliance Doctrine
Under settled jurisprudence, the requirement that all petitioners must sign the certification against forum shopping admits of exceptions under the doctrine of substantial compliance. When petitioners share a common interest and invoke a single, indivisible cause of action, the execution of the certification against forum shopping by one of the petitioners is deemed sufficient. This exception applies to co-employees who share a common cause of action in illegal dismissal cases, as their claims arise from identical facts and issues.
3. Verification by Counsel
As a general rule, an attorney or legal counsel cannot sign the certification against forum shopping on behalf of a client without a specific special power of attorney. The certification must be executed by the principal party who has personal knowledge of the facts. However, when one co-petitioner sharing a common cause of action validly executes the certification against forum shopping, any defect in the authorization of counsel for co-petitioners becomes immaterial under the substantial compliance rule.