Sec. 3. Complaint.

The complaint is the pleading alleging the plaintiff's cause or causes of action. The names and
residences of the plaintiff and defendant must be stated in the complaint.

COMPLAINT

It is a concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff’s cause or causes of
action, with a specification of the relief sought, but it may add a general prayer for such further
relief as may be deemed just or equitable.

Sec. 4. Verification.

Except when otherwise specifically required by law or rule, pleadings need not be under
oath, verified or accompanied by affidavit.

A pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant has read the pleading and that the
allegations therein are true and correct of his knowledge and belief.

A pleading required to be verified which contains a verification based on "information and

belief," or upon "knowledge, information and belief," or lacks a proper verification, shall
be treated as an unsigned pleading.

The absence of a proper verification is cause to treat the pleading as unsigned and dismissible (Riano, 2014,
citing Chua v. Torres, G.R. No. 151900, 30 August 2005).
Effects of lack of verification

1. A pleading required to be verified but lacks the proper verification shall be treated as an
unsigned pleading (Sec. 4 as amended by A.M. 00-2-10, May 1, 2000). Hence, it produces no
legal effect (Sec. 3, Rule 7).

2. It does not necessarily render the pleading defective. It is only a formal and not a
jurisdictional requirement. The requirement is a condition affecting only the form of the
pleading (Benguet Corp. v. Cordillera Caraballo Mission, Inc., G.R. No. 155343, September 2,
2005) and non-compliance therewith does not necessarily render it fatally defective (Sarmiento
v. Zaranta, G.R. No. 167471,February 5, 2007).

3. The absence of verification may be corrected by requiring an oath. The rule is in keeping with
the principle that rules of procedure are established to secure substantial justice and that
technical requirements may be dispensed with in meritorious cases (Pampanga Sugar
Development Co., Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 112650, May 29, 1997).

NOPA

would failure to verify warrant an outright dismissal?

“NOPA claims that this Court has in several cases allowed pleadings with a Verification that contains the
allegation "to the best of my knowledge" and the allegation "are true and correct," without the words "of
his own knowledge,"

NOPA is mistaken. NOPA cited cases promulgated before 1 May 2000, when Section 4 of Rule 7 was
amended by A.M. No. 00-2-10. Before the amendment, said Section 4 stated:

SEC. 4. Verification. Except when otherwise specifically required by law or rule, pleadings need not be
under oath, verified or accompanied by affidavit.

A pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant has read the pleading and that the allegations therein
are true and correct of his knowledge and belief.

As amended, said Section 4 now states:

SEC. 4. Verification. Except when otherwise specifically required by law or rule, pleadings need not be
under oath, verified or accompanied by affidavit.

A pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant has read the pleading and that the allegations therein
are true and correct of his personal knowledge or based on authentic records.

amendment was introduced in order to make the verification requirement stricter, such that the party
cannot now merely state under oath that he believes the statements made in the pleading. He cannot
even merely state under oath that he has... knowledge that such statements are true and correct. His
knowledge must be specifically alleged under oath to be either personal knowledge or at least based on
authentic records.

Section 4 of Rule 7, as amended, states... that the effect of the failure to properly verify a pleading is that
the pleading shall be treated as unsigned:

A pleading required to be verified which contains a verification based on "information and belief," or
upon "knowledge, information and belief," or lacks a proper verification, shall be treated as an unsigned
pleading.

An unsigned pleading produces no legal effect. However, the court may, in its discretion, allow such
deficiency to be remedied if it shall appear that the same was due to mere inadvertence and not intended
for delay. Counsel who deliberately files an unsigned... pleading, or signs a pleading in violation of this
Rule, or alleges scandalous or indecent matter therein, or fails to promptly report to the court a change of
his address, shall be subject to appropriate disciplinary action. (5a)

A pleading, therefore, wherein the Verification is merely based on the party's knowledge and belief
produces no legal effect, subject to the discretion of the court to allow the deficiency to be remedied.

Court of Appeals, in the exercise of this discretion, refused to allow the deficiency in the Verification to be
remedied, by denying NOPA's Motion for Reconsideration with attached Amended Petition for Certiorari.

WHEREFORE, the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated 23 May 2007 and 16 August 2007,
respectively, in CA-G.R. SP No. 02651, outrightly dismissing the Petition for Certiorari filed by petitioner
Negros Oriental Planters Association, Inc. against private... respondent Aniceto Manojo Campos, are
AFFIRMED.”

if the defect in complaint is formal, can it be waived?

PBCOM

First, respondents claim that the petition, not being verified, is fatally defective. We do not think so. It is true that
Rule 67, sec. 1, of the Rules of Court, requires that the petition for certiorari be verified, the apparent object thereof
being to insure good faith in the averments of the petition. Where, however, the material facts alleged are a matter
of record in the court below, consisting in pleading filed or proceedings taken therein, and the questions raised are
mainly of law, a verification as to the truth of said facts is not an absolute necessity and may be waived (42 Am. Jur.,
sec. 42, p. 177), as this Court has done in this case when gave due course to the present petition. In fact, many
authorities consider the absence of verification a mere formal, not jurisdictional, defect, the absence of which does
not of itself justify a court in refusing to allow and act in the case

Forum shopping (Bar 2006)

It is an act of a party against whom an adverse judgment has been rendered in one forum of
seeking and possibly getting a favorable opinion in another forum, other than by appeal or the
special civil action of certiorari (Sps. Carpio v. Rural Bank of Sto. Tomas Batangas, G.R. No.
153171, May 4, 2006).

Test to determine forum shopping

Whether in the two or more cases pending, there is identity of:

1. Parties
2. Rights or Causes of action
3. Reliefs sought (Huibonhoa v. Concepcion, G.R. No.153785, August 3, 2006)
-reconcile mandatory nature but not jurisdictional.

Robin Dev't Corp vs Quitain GR No. 1350, Sept. 23, 1999

Petitioner contends that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the case because, first, Atty. Caete who
signed the verification and certification of non-forum shopping was neither the president nor the general manager of
NPC; and second, under Section 15-A of RA 6395, only the NPC chief legal counsel, under the supervision of the Office
of the Solicitor General is authorized to handle legal matters affecting the government power corporation. On the
other hand, NPC argues that Caete, as its regional legal counsel in Mindanao, is authorized to prepare the Complaint
on its behalf.

We find the disputed verification and certification to be sufficient in form. Verification is intended to assure that the
allegations therein have been prepared in good faith or are true and correct, not mere speculations.13 Generally, lack
of verification is merely a formal defect that is neither jurisdictional nor fatal. Its absence does not divest the trial
court of jurisdiction.14 The trial court may order the correction of the pleading or act on the unverified pleading, if
the attending circumstances are such that strict compliance with the rule may be dispensed with in order to serve the
ends of justice.

The certificate of non-forum shopping directs the plaintiff or principal party to attest under oath that (1) no action or
claim involving the same issues have been filed or commenced in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and that,
to the best of the plaintiff's knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending; (2) if there is such other pending
action or claim, a complete statement of its present status shall be made; and (3) if it should be learned that the same
or a similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, the plaintiff shall report this fact to the court where the
complaint or initiatory pleading was filed.15 This rule is rooted in the principle that a party-litigant shall not be
allowed to pursue simultaneous remedies in different forums, as this practice is detrimental to orderly judicial
procedure.16 Administrative Circular No. 04-94, which came before the 1997 Rules of Court, is deemed mandatory
but not jurisdictional, as jurisdiction over the subject or nature of the action is conferred by law.17

In this case, the questioned verification stated that Atty. Caete was the acting regional legal counsel of NPC at the
Mindanao Regional Center in Iligan City. He was not merely a retained lawyer, but an NPC in-house counsel and
officer, whose basic function was to prepare legal pleadings and to represent NPC-Mindanao in legal cases. As
regional legal counsel for the Mindanao area, he was the officer who was in the best position to verify the
truthfulness and the correctness of the allegations in the Complaint for expropriation in Davao City. As internal legal
counsel, he was also in the best position to know and to certify if an action for expropriation had already been filed
and pending with the courts.

Besides, Atty. Caete was not the only signatory to the Complaint; he was joined by Comie P. Doromal, OIC-assistant
general counsel; and Catherine J. Pablo -- both of the NPC Litigation & Land and Land Rights Department. They all
signed on behalf of the solicitor general in accordance with the NPC charter.18 Their signatures prove that the NPC
general counsel and the solicitor general approved the filing of the Complaint for expropriation. Clearly then, the CA
did not err in holding that the Complaint was not dismissible on its face, simply because the person who had signed
the verification and certification of non-forum shopping was not the president or the general manager of NPC.

Sec. 2. Filing and service, defined.

Filing is the act of presenting the pleading or other paper to the clerk of court.

Service is the act of providing a party with a copy of the pleading or paper concerned. If any
party has appeared by counsel, service upon him shall be made upon his counsel or one of
them, unless service upon the party himself is ordered by the court. Where one counsel appears
for several parties, he shall only be entitled to one copy of any paper served upon him by the
opposite side.

BENECO

We consider that petitioner's first contention is meritorious. There is no dispute about the fact that the respondent
Beneco Board members received the decision of the labor Arbiter on 21 April 1988. Accordingly, and because 1 May
1988 was a legal holiday, they had only up to 2 May 1988 within which to perfect their appeal by filing their
memorandum on appeal. It is also not disputed that the respondent Board members' memorandum on appeal was
posted by registered mail on 3 May 1988 and received by the NLRC the following day. 4 Clearly, the memorandum on
appeal was filed out of time.

Respondent Board members, however, insist that their Memorandum on Appeal was filed on time because it was
delivered for mailing on 1 May 1988 to the Garcia Communications Company, a licensed private letter carrier. The
Board members in effect contend that the date of delivery to Garcia Communications was the date of filing of their
appeal memorandum.
Respondent Board member's contention runs counter to the established rule that transmission through a private
carrier or letter-forwarder –– instead of the Philippine Post Office –– is not a recognized mode of filing pleadings. 5
The established rule is that the date of delivery of pleadings to a private letter-forwarding agency is not to be
considered as the date of filing thereof in court, and that in such cases, the date of actual receipt by the court, and
not the date of delivery to the private carrier, is deemed the date of filing of that pleading. 6

There, was, therefore, no reason grounded upon substantial justice and the prevention of serious miscarriage of
justice that might have justified the NLRC in disregarding the ten-day reglementary period for perfection of an appeal
by the respondent Board members. Accordingly, the applicable rule was that the ten-day reglementary period to
perfect an appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional in nature, that failure to file an appeal within the reglementary
period renders the assailed decision final and executory and no longer subject to review. 7 The respondent Board
members had thus lost their right to appeal from the decision of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC should have
forthwith dismissed their appeal memorandum.

Ballatan

2. Payment of Docket and other lawful fees

The third-party complaint in the instant case arose from the complaint of petitioners against respondents Go.
The complaint filed was for accion publiciana, i.e., the recovery of possession of real property which is a real
action. The rule in this jurisdiction is that when an action is filed in court, the complaint must be accompanied by
the payment of the requisite docket and filing fees.11 In real actions, the docket and filing fees are based on the
value of the property and the amount of damages claimed, if any.12 If the complaint is filed but the fees are not
paid at the time of filing, the court acquires jurisdiction upon full payment of the fees within a reasonable time
as the court may grant, barring prescription.13 Where the fees prescribed for the real action have been paid but
the fees of certain related damages are not, the court, although having jurisdiction over the real action, may not
have acquired jurisdiction over the accompanying claim for damages.14 Accordingly, the court may expunge
those claims for damages, or allow, on motion, a reasonable time for amendment of the complaint so as to
allege the precise amount of damages and accept payment of the requisite legal fees.15 If there are unspecified
claims, the determination of which may arise after the filing of the complaint or similar pleading, the additional
filing fee thereon shall constitute a lien on the judgment award.16 The same rule also applies to third-party
claims and other similar pleadings.

In the case at bar, the third-party complaint filed by respondents Go was incorporated in their answer to the
complaint. The third-party complaint sought the same remedy as the principal complaint but added a prayer for
attorney's fees and costs without specifying their amounts, thus:

Contrary to petitioners' claim, the Court of Appeals did not err in awarding damages despite the Go's failure to
specify the amount prayed for and pay the corresponding additional filing fees thereon. The claim for attorney's
fees refers to damages arising after the filing of the complaint against the Go's. The additional filing fee on this
claim is deemed to constitute a lien on the judgment award.

Part 2. Jurisdiction over parties

Jurisdiction over the

plaintiff
Acquired when the action is commenced by the filing of the complaint. This presupposes payment of thedocket
fees.
and defendant
1. By his voluntaryappearance in court and his submission to its authority
2. By valid service of summons
3. Other coercive process upon him (arrest in criminal cases)
NOTE: Jurisdiction over the defendant is not essential in actions in rem or quasi in rem as long as the court has
jurisdiction over the res (Herrera, 2007).

MODES OF SERVICE MODES OF SERVICE

1. Personal service (Sec. 6, Rule 13);
2. Service by registered mail (Sec. 7, Rule 13); or
3. Substituted service (Sec. 8, Rule 13).

PERSONAL SERVICE
Personal service is done by:
1. Delivering personally a copy to the party or his counsel; or
2. Leaving a copy in counsel’s office with his clerk or with a person having charge thereof; or
3. Leaving the copy between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. at the party’s or counsel’s residence, if known, with a person
of sufficient age and discretion residing therein if no person found in his office, or if his office is unknown, or
if he has no office (Sec. 6, Rule 13).

SERVICE BY MAIL
Service by mail is done by:
1. By depositing the copy in the post office in a sealed envelope, plainly addressed to the party or his
counsel at his office, if known, otherwise at his residence, if known, with postage fully prepaid, and with
instructions to the postmaster to return the mail to the sender after 10 days if undelivered; or
2. Ordinary mail if no registry service is available in the locality of either the sender or the addressee (Sec. 7,
Rule 13).

NOTE: Service and filing by mail may be done only when personal service and filing is not practicable.

SUBSTITUTED SERVICE
If service of pleadings, motions, notices, resolutions, orders and other papers cannot be made under the two
preceding sections, the office and place of residence of the party or his counsel being unknown, service may
be made by delivering the copy to the clerk of court, with proof of failure of both personal service and service
by mail (Sec. 8, Rule 13) (Bar 2002, 2004, 2009)

SERVICE OF JUDGMENTS, FINAL ORDERS

OR RESOLUTIONS
Judgments, service of judgments, final orders or resolutions is done by:
1. Personal service;
2. Registered mail; or
3. Publication, if party is summoned by publication and has failed to appear in the action (Sec. 9, Rule 13)

NOTE: No substituted service is allowed with regard to judgments, final orders or resolutions.

PRIORITIES IN MODES OF SERVICE AND FILING

GR: Whenever practicable, the service and filing shall be done personally.
XPN: With respect to papers emanating from the court, a resort to other modes must be accompanied by a
written explanation why the service or filing was not done personally (Sec. 11, Rule 13).

NOTE: A violation of this rule may be cause to consider the paper as not filed (Ibid.).
The explanation must be satisfactory and acceptable to the court. Otherwise, the court has the discretion to
consider the pleading, etc., as not having been filed (Solar Team Enterprises, Inc. v. Judge Ricafort, 35 Phil.
404).

WHEN SERVICE IS DEEMED COMPLETE

1. Personal service – upon actual delivery;
2. Service by ordinary mail – upon expiration of 10 days after mailing, unless the court otherwise provides;
3. Service by registered mail – upon actual receipt by the addressee, or 5 days from the date he received
the first notice of the postmaster, whichever date is earlier (Sec. 10, Rule 13);
4. Substituted service – at the time of such delivery (Sec. 8, Rule 13).