The Supreme Court held that photocopies of identification cards from private organizations and a joint affidavit from co-petitioners do not constitute competent evidence of identity for verification and certification against forum shopping. This ruling underscores the importance of strict compliance with the Rules of Court, especially regarding proper verification to ensure the truthfulness of allegations and certification to prevent parties from pursuing simultaneous remedies in different forums. The Court emphasized that procedural rules are essential for administering justice fairly and consistently, and only in exceptional circumstances should they be relaxed to prevent a greater injustice.

Lost in Translation: When Defective Verification Derails a Case

This case arose from complaints for illegal dismissal filed by Danny Singson, Rodolfo Pasaqui, Lendo Lominiqui, and Jun Andales against William Go Que Construction. The Labor Arbiter (LA) initially ruled in favor of the employees, but the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed this decision, finding that the employees were validly dismissed for theft. Dissatisfied, the employees elevated their case to the Court of Appeals (CA). However, the CA proceedings were marred by issues regarding the verification and certification against forum shopping, specifically concerning the proper identification of the affiants. The central question before the Supreme Court was whether the CA acted with grave abuse of discretion in refusing to dismiss the petition for certiorari due to non-compliance with these requirements.

The Supreme Court meticulously examined the requirements for verification and certification against forum shopping as outlined in the Rules of Civil Procedure. Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure states that “[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.” Furthermore, Section 5, Rule 7 requires the plaintiff or principal party to “certify under oath” that they have not commenced any action involving the same issues in any other court or tribunal. Failure to comply with these requirements may result in the dismissal of the case.

The Court found that the jurat of the Verification/Certification against Forum Shopping attached to the petition for certiorari before the CA was defective because it did not adequately indicate the competent evidence of the affiants’ identities. The jurat is the part of the affidavit in which the notary public certifies that the affiant personally appeared before them, was identified, and took an oath affirming the truth of the document’s contents. A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC, or the “2004 Rules on Notarial Practice,” provides specific guidelines on what constitutes competent evidence of identity.

Section 6, Rule II of A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC defines a jurat as an act where an individual appears before a notary public, presents a document, is identified through competent evidence, signs the document in the notary’s presence, and takes an oath. Section 12, Rule II further clarifies that “competent evidence of identity” includes “at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the photograph and signature of the individual.” The rule provides examples such as passports, driver’s licenses, and other government-issued IDs. It also allows for identification through the oath or affirmation of a credible witness not privy to the instrument, but only under specific conditions.

In this case, the private respondents submitted photocopies of IDs from private organizations and a Joint-Affidavit attesting to the identity of one of the co-petitioners. The Court ruled that these documents did not meet the requirements of competent evidence of identity under Section 12 (a) and (b), Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Because the submitted IDs were not issued by an official agency, and the Joint-Affidavit was provided by parties privy to the instrument, they could not serve as valid proof of identity. The Supreme Court also emphasized that it cannot be presumed that an affiant is personally known to the notary public; the jurat must contain a statement to that effect, which was lacking in this case.

The Court acknowledged the principle in Fernandez v. Villegas, G.R. No. 200191, August 20, 2014, 733 SCRA 548 that non-compliance with the verification requirement does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective and can be addressed through substantial compliance. However, the Court found no substantial compliance in this case, as it could not be ascertained that any of the private respondents actually swore to the truth of the allegations in the petition due to the lack of competent evidence of their identities. Similarly, there was no substantial compliance with the certification against forum shopping requirement. As explained in Fernandez, defects in the certification against forum shopping are generally not curable unless there is a need to relax the Rule on the ground of ‘substantial compliance’ or presence of’special circumstances or compelling reasons,’ which were absent here.

Moreover, the Supreme Court highlighted the apparent variance in the signatures of the remaining private respondents, Lominiqui and Andales, raising serious questions about the authenticity of their participation in the case. The Court noted that verification is required to ensure the allegations in the petition are made in good faith and are true and correct, while the certification against forum shopping is required to prevent a party from pursuing simultaneous remedies in different fora. Therefore, these requirements cannot be lightly disregarded absent any sustainable explanation, especially in light of the allegations of forgery. In conclusion, the Supreme Court found that the CA gravely abused its discretion by treating the insufficient submissions as compliance, and the proper course of action would have been to dismiss the petition.

The Supreme Court reiterated that procedural rules are not mere technicalities but essential tools for administering justice in a fair and consistent manner. While there are exceptions where procedural rules may be relaxed to prevent injustice, such liberality is not warranted in this case. The Court emphasized that justice must be administered according to the rules to avoid arbitrariness and ensure fairness to all parties involved.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the Court of Appeals (CA) acted with grave abuse of discretion in refusing to dismiss a petition for certiorari due to non-compliance with the requirements of verification and certification against forum shopping, specifically regarding the competent evidence of identity.
What is a jurat?	A jurat is the part of an affidavit where the notary public certifies that the affiant personally appeared before them, was properly identified, and swore to the truth of the document’s contents. It confirms that the affiant took an oath or affirmation before the notary public.
What constitutes “competent evidence of identity” according to the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice?	Competent evidence of identity includes at least one current identification document issued by an official government agency bearing the photograph and signature of the individual, such as a passport or driver’s license. It can also be established through the oath or affirmation of a credible witness not privy to the instrument.
Why were the IDs submitted in this case deemed insufficient?	The photocopies of IDs from private organizations (La Vista Association, Inc., R.O. Barra Builders & Electrical Services, and St. Charbel Executive Village) were deemed insufficient because they were not issued by official government agencies. Additionally, the Joint Affidavit was provided by parties privy to the instrument, making it inadmissible.
What is the purpose of verification and certification against forum shopping?	Verification ensures that the allegations in a pleading are made in good faith and are true and correct. Certification against forum shopping prevents a party from pursuing simultaneous remedies in different courts or tribunals, avoiding conflicting decisions.
Can non-compliance with verification and certification requirements be excused?	While strict compliance is generally required, courts may allow substantial compliance in certain circumstances, such as when a person with ample knowledge swears to the truth of the allegations. However, defects in the certification against forum shopping are generally not curable unless there are special circumstances or compelling reasons.
What was the Court’s ruling in Fernandez v. Villegas and how does it apply here?	In Fernandez v. Villegas, the Court stated that non-compliance with the verification requirement does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective and may be excused under certain circumstances. However, in this case, the Court found no substantial compliance to justify relaxing the rules.
What is the significance of signature variances in legal documents?	Signature variances can raise serious questions about the authenticity of the documents and the actual participation of the parties involved. In this case, variances in the signatures of the private respondents cast doubt on their involvement and the validity of the proceedings.
What is the key takeaway from this case regarding procedural rules?	The key takeaway is that procedural rules are not mere technicalities but essential tools for administering justice fairly and consistently. Compliance with these rules is generally required, and exceptions are only granted in exceptional circumstances to prevent a greater injustice.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in this case emphasizes the importance of adhering to procedural rules, especially regarding verification and certification against forum shopping. The ruling serves as a reminder that proper identification and compliance with notarial requirements are critical for ensuring the integrity of legal proceedings.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: William Go Que Construction v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 191699, April 19, 2016