JUABAN V. ESPINA G.r. No. 161317, March 14, 2008 FACTS This stemmed from 3 interlinked cases.

Heirs of Bancale sued for the recovery of certain properties against Eva Paras and others (Case No. 1). Petitioners Juaban and Zosa were their counsels. The heirs then entered into an Agreemenet to Sell and to Buy with respondent Espina, where they agreed to sell the subject property to respondent or his assignee with the amount of P2M as advance payment on the purchase price. Espina duly paid the said amount. He then designated respondent Cebu Bay Discovery Properties, Inc. (CDPI) as the vendee. Subsequently, respondents found out that Juaban and Zosa had filed a motion to fix their attorneys fees which was granted and fixed by the RTC at P9M. The heirs moved for reconsideration but were denied. They filed a Notice of Appeal which was indirectly overruled when the court granted the motion for execution filed by petitioners. A writ of execution was then issued followed by the sale of the subject properties to petitioners for P9M, despite the express instruction of the writ that the attorneys fees were to be taken from the money due from the buyer to the sellers under the agreement. However, the RTC, under a new presiding judge, reversed and granted the MR of the heirs. Meanwhile, petitioners were able to obtain a final deed of sale from Sheriff Gato on the ground that no redemption of the subject properties was made (Thus, an administrative complaint against the sheriff was filed for allegedly acting with manifest bias and partiality [Case No. 2]). Respondents also filed an injunction and damages case to enjoin the sale in a public auction by Sheriff Gato, allegedly unaware, at the time of the filing of said case, that the properties had already been sold (Case No. 3). The court granted petitioners Motion to Dismiss. On appeal, CA reversed and ordered the writ of preliminary injunction to be made permanent. RELEVANT ISSUEs 1. 2. Whether respondent Espina has authority to file the case. YES Whether the certificate of non-forum shopping is invalid given that it was only signed by one of the plaintiffs, i.e. respondent Espina. (Ergo, whether the complaint should be dismissed due to non-compliance with the requirements of the Rules.) NO & NO!

RULING Petitioners claimed that the complaint should have been dismissed because Espina no longer had personal interest in the case as he had assigned his rights to CDPI and that he was not authorized to file on behalf of CDPI. However, citing Rule 3 Sec. 2 of the ROC, SC ruled that Espina is a real party in interest1 in this case. Thus, respondents right to the properties is based on the Agreement to Sell and to Buy executed between the heirs and respondent Espina. The said Agreement is the very source of the right, the violation of which constituted the cause of action in respondents complaint for injunction before the court a quo. It was respondent Espina who entered into the Agreement, and his rights as a party to the said contract were not extinguished just because he designated his co-respondent CDPI as vendee of the subject properties. Having been established as a real party in interest, respondent Espina has not only the personality to file the complaint in the third case, but also the authority to sign the certification against forum shopping as a plaintiff therein. Citing several cases, SC held that the certification against forum shopping must be signed by the plaintiff or any of the principal parties and not by counsel. The general rule is that the certificate must be signed by all the plaintiffs or petitioners in a case and the signature of only one of them is insufficient. Nevertheless, the rules on forum shopping, which were designed to promote and facilitate the orderly administration of justice, should not be interpreted with such absolute literalness as to subvert their own ultimate and legitimate objective. Strict compliance with the provisions regarding the certificate of non-forum shopping merely underscores its mandatory nature in that the certification cannot be altogether dispensed with or its requirements completely disregarded. Thus, when all the petitioners share a common interest and invoke a common cause of action or defense, the signature of only one of them in the certification against forum shopping substantially complies with the rules. A real party in interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Unless otherwise authorized by law or these Rules, every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest.
1

Thus, the certificate against forum shopping is not rendered invalid by the absence of the signature of an authorized official of respondent CDPI. The signature of respondent Espina as one of the plaintiffs therein suffices.