….. contained in the certificate—non-submission of a certificate is different from actual forum shopping.

Magkakaiba yon, I will repeat.

Absence of a certificate is different, the consequence is separate from non-compliance or false certification.
Kasi in non compliance & false certification may mga commitment ka sa certificate that you did not follow-
noncompliance.

What do you mean by false (certification) there is a willful assertion of falsehood, you could be exposed to
perjury charges of perjury and pangatlo actual forum shopping ibig sabihin non maaring may certificate ka
pero talagang nagfoforum shop ka, immaterial kung meron o wala di pinaguusapan yon. Ang pinaguusapan
bakit ka file ng file ng kaso. But it’s also possible that there an issue on forum shopping but there is still you
have to contend with non-compliance and you also have to contend with false certification.

Isa isahin ko yan mamaya, pag alam niyo yun safe tayo, di kayo gugulatin niyan.

Let us start first with a signature. Remember that of course if there is a counsel of record that lawyer will
have to sign the pleading; when the lawyer signs he attest to the fact that he had read the same and that is
true and correct based on his knowledge, information and belief, yun ang patotohanan niya, and it is not
interposed for purposes of delay. Imagine pag abogado na kayo pag pumirma ka ng pleading “hindi po ako
nandedelay” kahit na ginagawa mo, kaya kapag pumirma ka ibig sabihin it is true and correct based on
knowledge information and belief—sa aking pagkakaalam na ibinigay na impormasyon ng kliyente ko totoo
ito therefore pipirma ako and it is not interposed for purposes of delay. And, isa pa binasa, basahin niyo
pleading niyo. Pag pumirma ka sinasabi mo “binasa ko po ito” hindi pwede “hindi ko po nabasa eh”, bakit
ka pumirma? That is a serious matter. There may be some lawyers, and this is an important concern, who
allow/require their associates or other lawyers to prepare pleadings and they don’t read it. Pag
nagkaproblema ka hindi mo pwede ideny yun, pumirma ka, ibig sabihin you have read it. Yan ang
commitment mo pag pumirma ka.

Paano naman kung dahil sa pagmamdali mo, pagmamadali ng secretary mo nagfile kayo ng pleading na
walang pirma. Nangyayari yon. You file the pleading, an unsigned pleading. Filing an unsigned pleading
produces no legal effect, walang effect yon kumbaga walang bisa yung finile mo kasi it is unsigned.
However, you could convince to the court, explain to the court the reason you file an unsigned pleading, if
it was by reason inadvertence and some good reason the court may in the reasonable exercise of its
discretion consider the pleading as filed but that is the initial effect of filing an unsigned pleading.

Now, what if you make scandalous allegation, indecent allegation, the lawyer can be held administratively
liable. What if the lawyer changes his address without informing the court the lawyer can be held
administratively liable. Please bear that in mind these are the commitment of a lawyer to the court. I recall,
when these came out halos cinodal nila yan (sa bar exam). At that time may multiple choice pa, I’m not
sure parang 2013-2014. Nung tinanong nila yan multiple choice 20 questions, that was the bar exams with
multiple choice na meron kumukuha ng zero kasi ang ginawa nila sa multiple choice na yon parang fill in
the blanks. They give the sentence, which is in the provision, and then pipili ka 1 2 3 4 kung ano ang
continuation ng provision na yon, eh kung hindi mo memorize yon huhulaan mo. Di ko makalimutan yon
that was the bar exam na maraming naapektuhan kasi multiple choice pa lang may sumi-zero na, may 2,
may 3 buti wala na ngayon.

Let’s now move on to another. Didiscuss naman natin ang VERIFICATION. Sir, pareho ba yung verification
at certification. Is it the same? The answer is no. Is the requirement of a verification jurisdictional? The
answer is No it is not jurisdictional. In fact jurisprudence has consistently said, has continuously and
repeatedly declared that a verification could be corrected by an amendment. Yung verification pwede mo i-
correct ng amendment because it is not jurisdictional.

What should a verification contain? Ano ang nilalaman ng isang verification? Let me call your attention to
the case of Fuji Television v. Espiritu a 2014 case that discuss difference between a verification and a
certification. A verification is an affidavit under oath or an attestation under oath that the party has read the
pleading or the complaint or the initiatory pleading and the contents of which are true and correct based on
his personal knowledge or authentic documents on record, kung ako sainyo imememorize ko yan. It is true
and correct based on my personal knowledge or authentic documents on record, maliwanag ba, authentic
documents on record. Therefore, as a rule, only who could sign the verification? It should be the party
because only the party has personal knowledge of the case or if it is juridical entity which is a party an
officer of the corporation who attested the fact that he has authentic documents on record. Having said that,
very simple, I will have to add this statement—should all pleadings be verified? The answer is No. Why?
Only the law requires it to be verified. Tingnan natin:
(a) Ejectment cases kailangan verified;
(b) Cases under interim relief (those filed under alternative dispute resolution in court—pag sinabing interim
relief humihingi ka ng preliminary injunction, humihingi ka ng attachment sa court in aid of arbitration)
kailangan verified yes, but in those instances, that’s a special law, it allows a verification of counsel but
ordinarily verification of a party; Ano pa yung mga nasa rules?
(c) Petition for review under Rule 42;
(d) Petition for review under Rule 43 in the CA;
(e) Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45;
(f) Appeal to Supreme Court;
(g) Rule 65 Petition for certiorari in relation to Rule 46 should be verified, sabi ng batas verify mo yun;
(h) Initiatory pleadings with provisional remedies.

*All of these will have to be verified, is it the law that says it, if the law doesn’t say, you don’t need to verify.

Now, let me ask this question. Should an ordinary complaint be verified? Who says yes? “Sir lahat ng
complaint na nakita verieid eh” The answer is No. Eh sir bakit verified? Kasi in practice kung di rin
makakasama iverify mo na, kung di ako sigurado iverify nalang—alam niyo yung ganong ugali? Kung di
naman makaksama verify nalang ayos lang yan, that’s a reality, that is a practical approach to things by
some lawyers, bakit, kesa ako magkamali iverify ko nalang. That’s true, it happened to someone I know, a
lawyer, he knows that an ordinary complaint need not be verified so ang ginawa niya certificate against
non-forum shopping lang nilagay niya. Ano ang ginawa ng court? Dinismiss, di niya alam eh, eventually
pagakyat niya sa appeal binigay ng court but imagine ang perwisyo na aabutin mo diba. Pero hindi mo
pwede isagot sa bar yon, yung perwisyo, the practicality—hindi pwede. Ang sagot sa kailangan ba ng
verification ang ordinary complaint, ay hindi. Kailangan lang iverify yan kapag ang comaplaint sabi ng batas
iverify. Maliwanag kasi yan ang sabi ng batas. Besides, yung mas maingat na abogado ganito ang thinking
“bakit ipapa-verify ang kliyente ko kung hindi naman kailangan edi ineexpose ko ang kliyente ko, dahil
sinusumpaan niya yon kapag nagkamali ang kliyente ko edi baka idemanda pa yon”. That’s the other way
of looking at it but again, stripped of all those practical matters you don’t need to verify an ordinary complaint
and you have to remember this a verification is only required if the law says that the pleading will have to
be verified.

Let’s now move on to another point, sir sino ang pipirma? Para yang certificate on non-forum shopping
dahil today if you have verification chances are its coupled with a certificate, who signs it? The party. What
if there are multiple parties? All of them will have to sign. That’s the rule. If it is a juridical entity, who has to
sign? An officer duly authorized upon a board resolution and a secretary certificate should be attached to
the petition or initiatory pleading. So sir kung marami yan edi ang dami? Yes all of them will have to sign.

But later on I will explain exceptions but remember those instances where the court relax the rule are mere
exceptions and they are just substantial compliance. Example in the case of Olarte, kasi pareho verification
and certification in terms of signing, in Olarte hindi nakapirma lahat ng may interes sa family home, okay
na din daw sabi ng Supreme Court; Godal Kiver(??), hindi lahat ng co-owner nakapirma, okay na din sabi
ng court; in the case of DAR, yung magasawa hindi nakapirma pareho isa lang, sabi ng court because in
all these instances they have common interest. But all of those I have enumerated are exceptions they are
not the rule. Maganda lang yan for ganito, lecture, pag abogado na kayo ayaw mo na ng exceptions kasi
pag nagclaim ka ng exception dineny yung petition mo. Pag cnlaim mo and exception na yon, malamang
sa hindi gumulong na ang kaso mo ngayon naghahanap ka paraan para buhayin yung kaso mo. Therefore,
as a practitioner it is always safe to simply follow what the rule says. But of course, for purposes of the bar,
you have to know the exceptions.
To move on on another question, still on verification. Can a lawyer sign for the client? Ano nangyari dito
(referring to the paper)—many extensions were granted for filing of petition for review (ang pinaguusapan
dito petition for review ah) by counsel because the client was in the US, when the petition was already filed
the certification against forum shopping attached thereto was signed by him on behalf of the client, kasi ang
Petition for Review requires not only certification but also verification, it was signed by the lawyer thus the
dismissal. For that reason, there was a petition for certiorari. Dinismiss eh, ang nakapirma abogado. Ano
sabi? Whether of not the client’s prayer for relaxation of the rules on certificate against form shopping should
be granted. Sabi ng court NO, there was no justifiable reason in this case as to relax the rule on certification
against forum shopping, the need to abide by the rules of court and procedural requirements it imposes
has been constantly underscored by this court, sabi ng Supreme Court. One of these procedural
requirements is the certificate against non-forum shopping which time and again has been declared as
basic, necessary and mandatory. Extensions have been requested by the client through the counsel,
Supreme Court said, to this court the said period is more than enough for the client to execute Special
Power of Attorney (SPA) before the nearest Philippine consulate, the requirement that it is the client not the
counsel who should sign the certificate on non-forum shopping is due to the fact that a (this is important let
me quote) “certification is a peculiar personal representation on the part of the principal party, an assurance
given to the court or the tribunal that there are no other pending cases involving basically the same parties,
issues and causes of action. Maliwanag? Kaya nila pinapipirma yon. This is not a useless formality, hindi
lang sa walang magawa ang Supreme Court, ang ano lang nila, Kaso mo yan patotohanan mo, sino pa ba
magpapatotoo ng facts dyan na walang pending cases. And the verification works the same way, who
would attest to the fact that it is true and correct. Please bear that in mind. Difference now is clear between
a verification and a certification. Mamaya ibibigay ko what it contains, the certification.

Now, can a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) take the place the secretary certificate? Pag tinanong kayo
nito sa bar sasabihin ng iba unfair question. Kasi in our jurisdiction if it’s a juridical entity the authority should
be in a board resolution………