GABRIEL V. CA (CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING, MODES OF SERVICE AND FILING, PROBATE, RIGHT TO APPEAL)

On the first issue regarding the CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING, the Rules of Court provides that the plaintiff of the principal party shall certify under oath in the complaint or other initiatory pleading the requirements as mandated under Section 5, Rule 7. The said requirements are mandatory, and therefore, strict compliance thereof is necessary for the proper administration of justice.


In the petition filed by the petitioners in the CA, the verification and the certification against forum shopping were signed the Teresa Gabriel alone, albeit there were 7 petitioners therein. In their Memorandum, they proffer the view that the signature of Teresa being the mother of the rest of the petitioners, should be considered as substantial compliance, for she was willing to take the risk of contempt and perjury should she be found lying. According to petitioners, what is fatal is the utter lack of signatory in the certification.

The SC has been consistent in stringently enforcing the requirement of verification and certification of non-forum shopping. when there is more than one petitioner, a petition signed solely by one of them is defective, unless he was authorized by his co-parties to represent them and to sign the certification. The attestation contained in the certification of non-forum shopping requires personal knowledge by the party who executed the same.

In the instant case, the records are bereft of anything that would show that Teresa was authorized by the other petitioners to file the petition. In the certification against forum shopping, the principal party is required to certify under oath as to the matters contained therein and the failure to comply with the requirements shall not be curable by amendment but shall be a ground for the dismissal of the case. Personal knowledge of the party executing the same is important ans a similar requirement applies to the verification. Thus, the verification and certification signed only the Teresa are utterly defective, and it is within the prerogative of the court to dismiss the petition.

As aptly stated in Ortiz v. CA, substantial compliance will not suffice in a matter involving strict compliance. The attestation contained in the certification of non-forum shopping requires personal knowledge by the party who executed the same.

On the second issue, the written explanation why another mode of service was resorted to is a mandatory and indispensable requirement in pleadings or papers filed before all the courts of the land. Parties must exert their best to effect personal service. The Rules of Court provides that personal service of petitions and other pleadings is the general rule, while resort to other modes of service and filing is the exception. Strictest compliance with Sec 11 of rule 13 is mandated by the Court, and noncompliance therewith is a ground for the denial of the petition or the expulsion of the pleading from the records.

As to the fourth issue, the probate court can rightfully take cognizance of the unpaid taxes of the estate of the deceased; if the estate is found liable, the probate court has the discretion to order the payment of the said taxes.

Finally, petitioners should bear in mind that the right to appeal is not a natural right or part of due process. It is merely a statutory privilege, ans may be exercised only in the manner ans in accordance with the provisions of the law. The party who seeks to avail of the remedy of appeal must comply with the requirements of the rules; otherwise, the appeal is lost. Rules of procedure are required to be followed, except only when for the most persuasive of reasons, they may be relaxed to relieve the litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the procedure prescribed.