In Art Fuentebella, Park-in-Charge, and Rolling Hills Memorial Park, Inc. v. Darlica Castro, the Supreme Court addressed the critical requirements for signing a certification against forum shopping, particularly in cases involving corporations and multiple petitioners. The Court clarified that when a corporation is a party to a case, the certification must be signed by a duly authorized director or representative. Moreover, if there are multiple petitioners, each must sign the certification or provide proof that the signatory is authorized to act on their behalf. This ruling underscores the importance of proper authorization in legal filings to ensure compliance with procedural rules and prevent abuse of judicial processes.

Whose Signature Matters? Rolling Hills and the Forum Shopping Certificate

This case arose from a complaint filed by Darlica Castro against Rolling Hills Memorial Park, Inc. and its Park-in-Charge, Art Fuentebella, following an incident during her husband’s burial. After initially filing a complaint with the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), which was later withdrawn due to jurisdictional issues, Castro filed a similar complaint with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Negros Occidental. Petitioners then sought to dismiss the case, alleging that the certification against forum shopping attached to Castro’s complaint was false, as she had previously filed an identical complaint with the MTCC. The central legal question revolves around the validity of the certification against forum shopping and the consequences of submitting a false or improperly authorized certification.

The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition filed by Rolling Hills Memorial Park, Inc., citing that the verification and certification against forum shopping was signed by Lourdes Pomperada without adequate proof of authorization to represent the petitioners. Rule 7, Section 5 of the 1997 Revised Rules on Civil Procedure mandates that the plaintiff or principal party must execute the certification against forum shopping. The rationale behind this requirement is that the principal party has direct knowledge of whether a similar petition has been filed previously. If the principal party cannot sign, the person signing on their behalf must be duly authorized.

Supreme Court Circular No. 28-91 and Section 5, Rule 7 do not distinguish between natural and juridical persons, making this requirement applicable to both. When a corporation is involved, the certification must be signed by a duly authorized director or representative. In Eslaban, Jr. v. Vda. de Onorio, the Court emphasized that an officer of the corporation must be authorized by a resolution of its board of directors to sign the certification. Additionally, when there are multiple petitioners, each must execute the certification unless there is proof that one is authorized to act for the others. The certification requires personal knowledge, and it cannot be assumed that the signatory is aware of any similar actions filed or pending by their co-petitioners. As the Court noted in Loquias v. Office of the Ombudsman, a certification signed without proper authorization is considered defective and can lead to the dismissal of the petition.

In the case of Rolling Hills Memorial Park, Inc., Lourdes Pomperada, the Administrative Manager, initially failed to provide a secretary’s certificate or board resolution confirming her authority to sign for the corporation. She also lacked a special power of attorney to sign on behalf of co-petitioner Art Fuentebella. The Supreme Court has consistently emphasized the need for proper authorization in such cases. In Pet Plans, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, the Court explained that if the President of the corporation is impleaded in their official capacity and held jointly and solidarily liable, they become a real party-in-interest. Therefore, the President must sign the verification and certificate of non-forum shopping, or there must be clear authorization for another person to sign on their behalf. In the present case, the Court found that Pomperada’s initial failure to provide adequate proof of authorization justified the Court of Appeals’ decision to dismiss the petition.

However, the Court disagreed with the petitioners’ contention that Castro’s failure to disclose the previously filed and withdrawn case before the MTCC constituted a false certification warranting dismissal. The Court highlighted that an omission in the certificate of non-forum shopping is not fatal if it does not involve res judicata or litis pendentia. These legal doctrines prevent the re-litigation of issues already decided or the simultaneous litigation of the same issues in different courts. The Court reasoned that since the prior case in the MTCC had been withdrawn and did not result in a final judgment on the merits, it did not trigger the application of res judicata or litis pendentia. The evils that the certificate of non-forum shopping seeks to prevent were therefore not present in this situation. Nonetheless, the Court affirmed that the submission of a false certification could constitute indirect contempt of court, subject to administrative and criminal sanctions, as outlined in Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court.

In summary, the Supreme Court emphasized the crucial role of proper authorization when signing a certification against forum shopping, particularly in cases involving corporations and multiple petitioners. While the failure to disclose a previously withdrawn case did not warrant dismissal in this instance, the Court reiterated that false certifications could lead to contempt of court and other penalties. This case serves as a reminder for legal practitioners to ensure strict compliance with procedural rules to avoid adverse consequences.

FAQs

What is a certification against forum shopping?	It is a sworn statement required in complaints or initiatory pleadings, affirming that the party has not filed similar actions in other courts or tribunals.
Who must sign the certification against forum shopping?	The plaintiff or principal party must sign. If the party is a corporation, a duly authorized director or representative should sign.
What happens if the certification is not properly signed?	The case may be dismissed. The submission of a false certification can also lead to indirect contempt of court.
What if there are multiple petitioners?	Each petitioner must sign the certification unless one is authorized to sign on behalf of all, with proper documentation.
What is the effect of omitting a previously filed and withdrawn case in the certification?	It is not fatal if the prior case does not involve res judicata or litis pendentia. However, it could still be considered indirect contempt of court.
What is the purpose of the certification against forum shopping?	To prevent litigants from simultaneously pursuing the same case in multiple courts or tribunals, wasting judicial resources.
What is res judicata?	A matter that has been adjudicated by a competent court and may not be pursued further by the same parties.
What is litis pendentia?	A pending suit. It serves as a ground for the dismissal of a case if another action is pending between the same parties for the same cause of action.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Art Fuentebella, Park-in-Charge, and Rolling Hills Memorial Park, Inc. v. Darlica Castro reinforces the necessity of meticulous compliance with procedural rules, particularly concerning the certification against forum shopping. Ensuring proper authorization and accurate disclosure are critical to maintaining the integrity of the legal process and avoiding potential penalties. Failure to adhere to these requirements can have significant consequences for litigants and their legal representatives.

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: Art Fuentebella, Park-in-Charge, and Rolling Hills Memorial Park, Inc. v. Darlica Castro, G.R. No. 150865, June 30, 2006