FOR: ATTY. ROLANDO T.

ABO

FROM: Mohammad Bin Siradj M. Abantas (Legal Intern)

RE: LACK OF CERTIFICATE OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING IN ADMINISTRATIVE

CASES

DATE: June 17, 2021

FACTS:
An administrative complaint lacking a certificate of non-forum shopping was filed before
a tribunal. The respondent moved for the dismissal of the complaint based on the absence of
certificate of non-forum shopping.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the tribunal should grant the motion to dismiss the complaint

LAWS INVOLVED:

Section 11 of Rule 3 and Section 68 of Rule 13 of the 2017 Rules on Administrative

Cases in the Civil Service (2017 RACCS) which state:

DISCIPLINARY CASES
Rule 3
COMPLAINT

Section 11. Requisites of a Valid Complaint. – No complaint against an official

or employee shall be given due course unless the same is in writing, ,subscribed
and sworn to by the complainant. In cases initiated by the proper disciplining
authority or his/her authorized representative, a show cause order is sufficient.

The complaint shall be written in a clear, simple and concise language and in a
systematic manner as to apprise the person complained of, of the nature and
cause of the accusation and to enable the person complained of to intelligently
prepare a defense or answer/comment. Should there be more than one person
complained of, the complainant is required to submit additional copies
corresponding to the number of persons complained of.

The complaint shall contain the following:

a. full name and address of the complainant;
b. full name and address of the person/s complained of as well as his/ her
position and office;
c. a narration of the relevant and material facts which shows the acts or
omissions allegedly committed;
d. certified true copies of documentary evidence and affidavits of his/ her
witnesses, if any; and

1
 e. certification or statement of non-forum shopping.

The absence of any of the aforementioned requirements may cause the

dismissal of the complaint without prejudice to its refiling upon compliance
with the same.

OPINION:
The tribunal should grant the motion to dismiss the administrative case without
prejudice to its refiling as provided by Section 11 of the 2017 RACCS.

DISCUSSION:
Section 4 of 2017 RACCS refers to forum shopping as the filing of several administrative
actions or complaint either simultaneously or successively before agencies or tribunals having
concurrent jurisdiction over a case against the same party involving the same essential facts,
circumstances, acts, causes of action or relief, and all raising substantially the same issues. Such
case can either be pending in, or already resolved adversely by, some other tribunal or agency.

Section 11 of 2017 RACCS is clear that no complaint shall be given due course if the
requisites for valid complaint are not complied.

Furthermore, Section 11 specifically provides that for a complaint to be valid, it must

include a certificate of non-forum shopping and the absence of any of the requirements may
cause the dismissal of the complaint without prejudice to its refiling upon compliance with the
same.

This rule is in keeping with the general principle that administrative bodies are not
strictly bound by technical rules of procedure:

[A]dministrative bodies are not bound by the technical niceties of law and procedure
and the rules obtaining in courts of law. Administrative tribunals exercising quasi-
judicial powers are unfettered by the rigidity of certain procedural requirements,
subject to the observance of fundamental and essential requirements of due process
in justiciable cases presented before them. In administrative proceedings, technical
rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied and administrative due
process cannot be fully equated with due process in its strict judicial sense (Samalio
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 140079, March31, 2005).

The rule on certification against forum shopping is intended to prevent the actual filing of
multiple petitions/complaints involving identical causes of action, subject matter and issues in
other tribunals or agencies as a form of forum shopping. This is rooted in the principle that a
party-litigant should not be allowed to pursue simultaneous remedies in different forums, as this
practice is detrimental to orderly judicial procedure. Although not jurisdictional, the requirement
of a certification of non-forum shopping is mandatory. The rule requires that a certification
against forum shopping J should be appended to or incorporated in the initiatory pleading filed

2
before the court. The rule also requires that the party, not counsel, must certify under oath that he
has not commenced any other action involving the same issue in the court or any other tribunal
or agency (Philippine Public School Teachers Association v. Heirs of lligan, G.R. No. 171562,
July 27, 2006).

[T]he rules on forum shopping, which were designed to promote and facilitate the orderly
administration of justice, should not be interpreted with such absolute literalness as to subvert its
own ultimate and legitimate objective. Strict compliance with the provision regarding the
certificate of non-forum shopping underscores its mandatory nature in that the certification
cannot be altogether dispensed with or its requirements completely disregarded. It does not,
however, prohibit substantial compliance therewith under justifiable circumstances, considering
especially that although it is obligatory, it is not jurisdictional (Pacquing v. Coca-Cola
Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 157966, January 31, 2008).

Here, since there is no certificate of non-forum shopping included in the complaint, such
complaint cannot be given due course. Thus, the tribunal must grant the motion to dismiss but
such dismissal of the complaint is without prejudice to its refiling by the complainant.