GR 199440

Mary Lou Geturbos Torres, Petitioner

Corazon Alma G. De Leon, Board of Governors of Ph National Red Cross (PNRC), Respondents

FACTS:

 Mary Lou was the Chapter Administrator of the PNRC General Santos City Chapter.
On Mar 6, 2002, PNRC Internal Auditing office conducted an audit of the funds of PNRC General
Santos city and found that Mary Lou was accountable for a shortage of P4,306,574.23.

Jan 2007, petitioner was charged with grave misconduct for violating PNRC Financial policies on
disbursement of funds

June 2007, Corazon, the Secretary general of the PNRC, issued a memo suspending Mary Lou.
She was transferred to the National Headquarters. Mary Lou filed a motion for reconsideration
but it was denied.

Thereafter, Mary Lou filed a notice of appeal addressed to the Board of Governors of PNRC and
furnished a copy thereof to the CSC.

On Apr 2008, CSC dismissed her appeal and dismissed her from service. Mary filed an MFR but it
was denied.

 Mary Lou then filed a petition for review under Rule 43 before the CA. The CA ordered the
respondent to file its comment.

In Mar 2009, KLFGC law firm, representing the respondents, filed their COMMENT

In 2011, CA dismissed the petition.

 Mary lou then filed a petition for certiorari before the SC

Contention
1. The comment filed by the KLFGC Law firm in behalf of the Respondents was not
accompanied by a certification against forum shopping.

ISSUE:

1. The comment needed to be Verified and accompanied by a certificate of non-forum shopping

RULING

Answer

1. Nope

Legal Basis

1. Rules of Court 7 Sec 5 Certification against forum shopping

- The PLAINTIFF….. shall certify under oath in the complaint or other INITIATORY PLEADING
asserting a claim for relief……

Interpretation
- Clearly, the required certification against forum shopping is intended to cover an ”Initiatory
Pleading”. It is required for the party asserting a claim or relief

2. In the lower court, a comment filed, is not an Initiatory Pleading but a RESPONSIVE PLEADING.
(Pag sa trial court, eto yung “Answer. Pleading ito)

On the other hand, a comment required by an APPELLATE tribunal, to a petition filed with it is
NOT A PLEADING but merely an expression of the views of the respondent.

Application

1. In this case, Respondents filed a COMMENT required by the CA in the exercise of it’s appellate
Jurisdiction. The comment in this case is NOT EVEN A PLEADING. Suffice to say that it need not
adhere to the rules on forum shopping

CONCLUSION

1. Hence, the issue of forum shopping is of no moment to this case above.