TOPIC Summons, Rule 7, Formal requirements of pleadings

CASE NO. G.R. No. 175512. May 30, 2011

CASE NAME VALLACAR TRANSIT, INC v. Catubig
MEMBER Jop

DOCTRINE
1.) The Certification of non-forum shopping v. Verification
a. Cert. of non-forum shopping = MUST be signed by the party, not counsel. If not done properly can be a
jurisdictional defect.
b. Verification = verification of a pleading is a FORMAL requirement. Certification by counsel, instead of the
party themselves, does not render the petition defective.
2.) Amended rules of civil procedure states that: Verification. — Except when otherwise specifically required by law or
rule, pleadings need not be under oath or verified.
a. A pleading is verified by an affidavit of an affiant duly authorized to sign said verification. The authorization
of the affiant to act on behalf of a party, whether in the form of a secretary's certificate or a special power of
attorney, should be attached to the pleading, and shall allege the following attestations:
i. (a) The allegations in the pleading are true and correct based on his or her personal knowledge or
based on authentic documents.
ii. (b) The pleading is not filed to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of
litigation; and
iii. (c) The factual allegations therein have evidentiary support or, if specifically, so identified, will
likewise have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for discovery.
b. The signature of the affiant shall further serve as a certification of the truthfulness of the allegations in the
pleading.
c. A pleading required to be verified that 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

RECIT-READY DIGEST

A motorcycle tried to overtake a slow truck on a curve of a highway by COUNTERFLOWING onto the opposite lane
where the two riders (husband of the respondent along with his employee) hit a bus owned and operated by petitioner bus
company. The counterflowing motorcycle hit the bus, as seen by numerous witnesses, resulting to the immediate death of
the respondent’s husband and the eventual death of the employee while being rushed to the hospital. The respondent wife,
aggrieved of her husband’s death, CLAIMS NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE BUS COMPANY AND BUS
DRIVER, WHO WAS DRIVING ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE ROAD, BECAUSE THEY KILLED HER
COUNTERFLOWING HUSBAND.1

Bus driver and bus company were eventually dismissed of any criminal liability. Respondents now try to get civil liability
due to negligence on part of the driver as well as negligence on hiring said bus driver by the company. RTC =For
petitioner, CA= Reversed, now goes to SC. Petitioners claim that there was lack of verification by the respondents,
as they only submitted a certification of non-forum shopping. They claim that this is a reason for the dismissal of
the case. (main civ pro issue)

ISSUES:
1.) W/N Lack of verification warrants dismissal of the case, NO [MAIN CIV PRO ISSUE]

1
Sorry na trigger ako kasi napaka kapal naman ng itlog ng mga putang inang mga motor mag counterflow katapat
bus tapos gusto pa nila bus yung mag aadjust, but then again ang sad ng nangyari

1
 a. verification, like in most cases required by the rules of procedure, is a formal, not jurisdictional, requirement,
and mainly intended to secure an assurance that matters which are alleged are done in good faith or are true
and correct and not of mere speculation.
b. court may simply order the correction of unverified pleadings or act on it and waive strict compliance with
the rules in order that the ends of justice may thereby be served.
c. A party's representative, lawyer or any person who personally knows the truth of the facts alleged in the
pleading may sign the verification.
d. Thus the petitioners claim has no merit, but the issue is sufficiently solved by the next ratio.
2.) W/N guilty of negligence leading to the death of the respondent’s husband = NO [Main case issue but not civ pro
related]
a. Lack of enough proof to relate the bus driver’s actions as the Proximate cause of the deaths, or to show
negligence on the actions of the driver. It was proven with witness testimonies and police reports that the
motorcycle driver was at real fault for counterflowing like idiots. Thus, no negligence on the company and
bus driver, no damages case is dismissed.

FACTS
• Vallacar Transit (Vallacar) is in the business of transportation and is the franchise owner of a Ceres Bulilit bus
• Quirino Cabanilla (Cabanilla) is employed as a regular bus driver of Vallacar
• Jocelyn’s (respondent) husband, Quintin Catubig (Catubig), was on his way home from Dumaguete, driving a
motorcycle with an employee of his, Teddy Emperado (Emperado), riding in tandem with him
• While approaching a curve, Quintin tried to overtake a slow-moving ten-wheeler cargo truck by crossing over to
the opposite lane, which was being traversed by the Ceres Bulilit bus, driven by Cabanilla
• When the two vehicles collided, Catubig and Emperado were thrown from the motorcycle
• Catubig died on the spot while Emperado died while he was being rushed to the hospital
• Cabanilla was charged with reckless imprudence resulting in double homicide before the MCTC of Manjuyod-
Bindoy-Ayungon, Negros Oriental
• After preliminary investigation, MCTC dismissed the criminal charge, finding that Cabanilla was not criminally
liable for the deaths of Catubig and Emperado because there was no negligence, not even contributory, on
Cabanilla’s part
• Jocelyn filed a complaint for damages before the RTC, seeking actual, moral and exemplary damages amounting
to P484,000 for the death of her husband, based on Art. 2180, in relation to Art. 2176, of the Civil Code (she said
that Vallacar should be civilly liable vicariously because their employee was reckless and negligent in driving the
bus which collided with Catubig’s motorcycle)
• Vallacar’s defense, in its answer with counterclaim, was that the proximate cause of the collision was the sole
negligence of Catubig when he overtook the cargo truck at a curve, traversing the opposite lane
• Vallacar also asked for the dismissal of the complaint for not being verified and/or failure to state a cause of
action, as there was no allegation that Vallacar was negligent in the selection or supervision of its employee driver
• RTC dismissed the complaint, finding preponderance of evidence in favor of Vallacar, that Catubig was the
reckless and imprudent driver, and not Cabanilla. Vallacar’s counterclaim was dismissed for lack of merit
• Jocelyn appealed to the CA, which modified the RTC decision and found both drivers to have been negligent.
According to the CA, Catubig was negligent in overtaking a truck at a curve, while Cabanilla was running the
bus at a high speed of 100 kmh. CA also brushed aside the defense of Vallacar that it exercised the degree of
diligence required by law in the conduct of its business
• CA held Vallacar equally liable in the accident, awarding P250,000 to the heirs of Catubig as full compensation
for his death
• Vallacar’s MR was denied
• Vallacar filed a petition for review with the SC, asserting that Jocelyn’s complaint for damages should be
dismissed for her failure to verify the same and denying and vicarious liability through the alleged negligence of
their employee, Cabanilla

2
 ISSUE/S and HELD

1.) W/N Lack of verification warrants dismissal of the case, NO [MAINCIV PRO ISSUE]
a. verification, like in most cases required by the rules of procedure, is a formal, not jurisdictional, requirement,
and mainly intended to secure an assurance that matters which are alleged are done in good faith or are true
and correct and not of mere speculation.
b. court may simply order the correction of unverified pleadings or act on it and waive strict compliance with the
rules in order that the ends of justice may thereby be served.
c. A party's representative, lawyer or any person who personally knows the truth of the facts alleged in the
pleading may sign the verification.
d. Thus, in the case at bar, the non-verification is not a cause to dismiss the case.
2.) W/N guilty of negligence leading to the death of the respondent’s husband = NO [Main case issue but not civ pro
related]
a. Lack of enough proof to relate the bus driver’s actions as the Proximate cause of the deaths, or to show
negligence on the actions of the driver. It was proven with witness testimonies and police reports that
the motorcycle driver was at real fault for counterflowing like idiots. Thus, no negligence on the
company and bus driver, no DMGS.
b. Testimonies and witnesses conclusively prove that the bus driver had no time to react to the sudden
counterflow by the motorcycle
c. As no reasonable preventive action could have been done by the Bus driver, the court finds that he is not the
proximate cause of the deaths of the two motorcycle riders.
d. The issue on the liability of the bus company in their hiring standards is thus moot, as there is no more need
to check if there was negligence on the hand of the petitioner company in their hiring process.

DISPOSTIVE PORTION