I. Verification is not a jurisdictional requirement.

G.R. No. 146364

June 3, 2004

COLITO T. PAJUYO, petitioner,

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and EDDIE GUEVARRA, respondents.
On the other hand, the requirement on verification of a pleading is a formal and not a
jurisdictional requisite. It is intended simply to secure an assurance that what are alleged in
the pleading are true and correct and not the product of the imagination or a matter of
speculation, and that the pleading is filed in good faith.

II. Certification, however, is necessary, but a lack or defect in the certification, while
generally incurable, need not be fatal if the lack or defect is grounded on compelling
reasons, or in the interest of substantial justice.
Rule 7, 1997 Rules of Civil procedure. Sec. 5. Certification against forum shopping.
The plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath in the complaint or other initiatory
pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn certification annexed thereto and
simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he has not theretofore commenced any action or filed
any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the
best of his knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if there is such
other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof; and (c) if
he should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is
pending, he shall report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court wherein his
aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.
Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be curable by mere amendment
of the complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of the case
without prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon motion and after hearing. The submission
of a false certification or non-compliance with any of the undertakings therein shall constitute
indirect contempt of court, without prejudice to the corresponding administrative and criminal
actions. If the acts of the party or his counsel clearly constitute willful and deliberate forum
shopping, the same shall be ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and shall
constitute direct contempt, as well as a cause for administrative sanctions.

III. The only thing lacking in the certification is that it was not done under oath (not
notarized).
G.R. No. 191225

October 13, 2014

ZARSONA MEDICAL CLINIC, Petitioner,

vs.
PHILIPPINE HEALTH INSURANCE CORPORATION, Respondent.
Time and again, we had espoused the doctrine that provisions of the Rules of Court should
be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and
inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding. Otherwise put, the rule requiring a
certification of forum shopping to accompany every initiatory pleading, or the verification for
that matter "should not be interpreted with such absolute literalness as to subvert its own
ultimate and legitimate objective or the goal of all rules of procedure which is to achieve
substantial justice as expeditiously as possible. While it is true that the rules of procedure are
intended to promote rather than frustrate the ends of justice, and the swift unclogging of
court docket is a laudable objective, it nevertheless mustnot be met at the expense of

substantial justice. This Court has time and again reiterated the doctrine that the rules of
procedure are mere tools aimed at facilitating the attainment of justice, rather than its
frustration. A strict and rigid application of the rules must always be eschewed when it would
subvert the primary objective of the rules, that is, to enhance fair trialsand expedite justice.
Technicalities should never be used to defeat the substantive rights of the other party. Every
party-litigant must be affordedthe amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of
his cause, free from the constraints of technicalities.
G.R. No. 143377

February 20, 2001

SHIPSIDE INCORPORATED, petitioner,

vs.
THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS [Special Former Twelfth Division], HON. REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 26 (San Fernando City, La Union) & The REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondents.
In certain exceptional circumstances, however, the Court has allowed the belated filing of the
certification. In Loyola v. Court of Appeals, et. al. (245 SCRA 477 [1995]), the Court
considered the filing of the certification one day after the filing of an election protest as
substantial compliance with the requirement. In Roadway Express, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,
et. al. (264 SCRA 696 [1996]), the Court allowed the filing of the certification 14 days before
the dismissal of the petition. In "Uy v. LandBank, supra, the Court had dismissed Uy's
petition for lack of verification and certification against non-forum shopping. However, it
subsequently reinstated the petition after Uy submitted a motion to admit certification and
non-forum shopping certification. In all these cases, there were special circumstances or
compelling "reasons that justified the relaxation of the rule requiring verification and
certification on non-forum shopping.
G.R. No. 161368

April 5, 2010

MEDISERV, INC., Petitioner,

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS (Special Former 13th Division) and LANDHEIGHTS
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,Respondents.
The Court has consistently held that the requirement regarding verification of a pleading is
formal, not jurisdictional (Uy v. LandBank, G.R. No. 136100, July 24, 2000, 336 SCRA 419).
Such requirement is simply a condition affecting the form of the pleading, non-compliance
with which does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective. Verification is simply
intended to secure an assurance that the allegations in the pleading are true and correct and
not the product of the imagination or a matter of speculation, and that the pleading is filed in
good faith. The court may order the correction of the pleading if verification is lacking or act
on the pleading although it is not verified, if the attending circumstances are such that strict
compliance with the rules may be dispensed with in order that the ends of justice may
thereby be served.
On the other hand, the lack of certification against forum shopping is generally not curable by
the submission thereof after the filing of the petition. Section 5, Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure provides that the failure of the petitioner to submit the required documents
that should accompany the petition, including the certification against forum shopping, shall
be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof. The same rule applies to certifications against
forum shopping signed by a person on behalf of a corporation which are unaccompanied by
proof that said signatory is authorized to file a petition on behalf of the corporation.
In certain exceptional circumstances, however, the Court has allowed the belated
filing of the certification. In Loyola v. Court of Appeals, et al. (245 SCRA 477 [1995]), the
Court considered the filing of the certification one day after the filing of an election protest as
substantial compliance with the requirement. In Roadway Express, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,
et al. (264 SCRA 696 [1996]), the Court allowed the filing of the certification 14 days before

the dismissal of the petition. In Uy v. LandBank, supra, the Court had dismissed Uys petition
for lack of verification and certification against non-forum shopping. However, it subsequently
reinstated the petition after Uy submitted a motion to admit certification and non-forum
shopping certification. In all these cases, there were special circumstances or compelling
reasons that justified the relaxation of the rule requiring verification and certification on
non-forum shopping.
In the instant case, the merits of petitioners case should be considered special
circumstances or compelling reasons that justify tempering the requirement in regard to the
certificate of non-forum shopping. Moreover, in Loyola, Roadway, and Uy, the Court
excused non-compliance with the requirement as to the certificate of non-forum shopping.
With more reason should we allow the instant petition since petitioner herein did submit a
certification on non-forum shopping, failing only to show proof that the signatory was
authorized to do so. That petitioner subsequently submitted a secretarys certificate attesting
that Balbin was authorized to file an action on behalf of petitioner likewise mitigates this
oversight.
It must also be kept in mind that while the requirement of the certificate of non-forum
shopping is mandatory, nonetheless the requirements must not be interpreted too literally
and thus defeat the objective of preventing the undesirable practice of forumshopping (Bernardo v. NLRC, 255 SCRA 108 [1996]). Lastly, technical rules of procedure
should be used to promote, not frustrate justice. While the swift unclogging of court dockets
is a laudable objective, the granting of substantial justice is an even more urgent ideal.

IV. It may also be argued that the certification, as is, substantially complies with the
requirement of the rules, as it is signed by the proper party-litigant, and the only thing
lacking is the notarization.

G.R. No. 192615

January 30, 2013

SPOUSES EUGENE L. LIM and CONSTANCIA LIM, Petitioners,

vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS-Minadanao Station, HON. FLORENCIA D. SEALANA-ABBU,
Presiding Judge of Branch 20, Regional Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City, and The
BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS,Respondents.
In any case, it is settled that the requirements of verification and certification against forum
shopping are not jurisdictional.24 Verification is required to secure an assurance that the
allegations in the petition have been made in good faith or are true and correct, and not
merely speculative.25 Non-compliance with the verification requirement does not necessarily
render the pleading fatally defective,26 and is substantially complied with when signed by one
who has ample knowledge of the truth of the allegations in the complaint or petition, and
when matters alleged in the petition have been made in good faith or are true and
correct.27 On the other hand, the certification against forum shopping is required based on
the principle that a party-litigant should not be allowed to purse simultaneous remedies in
different for a.28 While the certification requirement is obligatory, non-compliance or a defect
in the certification could be cured by its subsequent correction or submission under special
circumstances or compelling reasons, or on the ground of "substantial compliance.