163.
VDA DE FORMOSO V PNB
FACTS: Nellie Panelo Vda. De Formoso (Nellie) and her children namely: Ma. Theresa Formoso-
Pescador, Roger Formoso, Mary Jane Formoso, Bernard Formoso, and Benjamin Formoso, executed a
special power of attorney in favor of Primitivo Malcaba, authorizing him, among others, to secure all
papers and documents including the owner's copies of the titles of real properties pertaining to the loan
with real estate mortgage originally secured by Nellie and her late husband, Benjamin S. Formoso, from
Philippine National Bank. The Formosos sold the subject mortgaged real properties to Malcaba through a
Deed of Absolute Sale. Subsequently, on March 22, 1994, Malcaba and his lawyer went to PNB to fully
pay the loan obligation including interests. PNB, however, allegedly refused to accept Malcaba's tender of
payment and to release the mortgage or surrender the titles of the subject mortgaged real properties.
Petitioners filed a Complaint for Specific Performance against PNB before the Regional Trial Court. RTC
finally rendered its decisionon October 27, 1999 favoring the petitioners
The petitioners' prayer for exemplary or corrective damages, attorney's fees, and annual interest and daily
interest, however, were denied for lack of evidence. They filed their Petition for Relief from Judgment
questioning the RTC decision that there was no testimonial evidence presented to warrant the award for
moral and exemplary damages. Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari before the CA. CA dismissed the
petition.
The verification and certification of non-forum shopping was signed by only one (Mr. Primitivo Macalba) of
the many petitioners. In Loquias v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 139396, August 15, 2000, it was
ruled that all petitioners must be signatories to the certification of non-forum shopping unless the one who
signed it is authorized by the other petitioners. In the case at bar, there was no showing that the one who
signed was empowered to act for the rest. Therefore, it cannot be presumed that the one who signed
knew to the best of his knowledge whether his co-petitioners had the same or similar claims or actions
filed or pending. The ruling in Loquias further declared that substantial compliance will not suffice in the
matter involving strict observance of the Rules. Likewise, the certification of non-forum shopping requires
personal knowledge of the party who executed the same and that petitioners must show reasonable
cause for failure to personally sign the certification. Utter disregard of the Rules cannot just be
rationalized by harping on the policy of liberal construction.
ISSUES: Whether the COURT OF APPEALS PATENTLY ERRED IN RULING THAT ALL THE
PETITIONERS MUST SIGN THE VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING
IN A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI?
HELD: The petition lacks merit.
Under Rule 46, Section 3, paragraph 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, petitions for
certiorari must be verified and accompanied by a sworn certification of non-forum shopping.
The petitioner shall also submit together with the petition a sworn certification that he has not theretofore
commenced any other action involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or
different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency; if there is such other action or proceeding, he
must state the status of the same; and if he should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has
been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or different divisions thereof, or
any other tribunal or agency, he undertakes to promptly inform the aforesaid courts and other tribunal or
agency thereof within five (5) days therefrom.
The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements shall be sufficient ground for
the dismissal of the petition. Although the Court has absolute discretion to reject and dismiss a petition for
certiorari, it does so only (1) when the petition fails to demonstrate grave abuse of discretion by any court,
agency, or branch of the government; or (2) when there are procedural errors, like violations of the Rules
of Court or Supreme Court Circulars.
