Session Date Agenda

1 18 August Introduction and Cardinal Rules in drafting legal documents

2 25 August Definition and characteristics of public documents
Cases:

• Soriano v. Basco, A.C. No. 6648, 21 September 2005

Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. On the contrary, it is invested with
substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as
notary public. Notarization of a private document converts it into a public instrument making
it admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity. A notarial document is by law
entitled to full faith and credit upon its face and, for this reason, notaries public must observe
with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties, lest, the confidence
of the public in the integrity of the document will be undermined.

• Dela Cruz v. Zabala, A.C. No. 6294, 17 November 2004

The function of a notary public is, among others, to guard against any illegal or immoral
arrangements. By affixing his notarial seal on the instrument, he converted the Deed of Absolute
Sale, from a private document into a public document. In doing so, respondent, in effect,
proclaimed to the world that:
(1) all the parties therein personally appeared before him;
(2) they are all personally known to him;
(3) they were the same persons who executed the instruments;
(4) he inquired into the voluntariness of execution of the instrument; and
(5) they acknowledged personally before him that they voluntarily and freely executed the
same.

• Heirs of Amaparo Del Rosario v. Santos, G.R. No. L-46892

30 September 1981
Issue: Whether or not the due execution and genuineness of the deed of sale are the main
issue in this case.
Ruling: No.

Appellants in their opposition to the motion for summary judgment and/or judgment on the
pleadings, however, do not deny the genuineness of their signatures on the deed of sale.

They do not contest the words and figures in said deed except in the acknowledgment portion
thereof where certain words were allegedly cancelled and changed without their knowledge and
consent and where, apparently, they appeared before Notary Public Florencio Landrito when,
in fact, they claimed that they did not. In effect, there is an admission of the due execution
and genuineness of the document because by the admission of the due execution of a
document is meant that the party whose signature it bears admits that voluntarily he
signed it or that it was signed by another for him and with his authority; such as swearing and
acknowledgment or revenue stamps which it requires, are waived by him.
• Permanent Savings and Loan Bank v. Velarde, G.R. No.
140608, 23 September 2004
Issue:
Whether or not the Respondent has already impliedly admitted the genuineness and due
execution of the loan documents.

Ruling:
Yes.

The pertinent rule on actionable documents is found in Rule 8, Section 7 of the Rules of Court
which provides that when the cause of action is anchored on a document, the genuineness or
due execution of the instrument shall be deemed impliedly admitted unless the defendant,
under oath, specifically denies them, and sets forth what he claims to be the facts.

While Section 22, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court requires that private documents be proved
of their due execution and authenticity before they can be received in evidence, i.e.,
presentation and examination of witnesses to testify on this fact; in the present case, there is no
need for proof of execution and authenticity with respect to the loan documents because of
respondent's implied admission thereof.

• Dela Cruz v. Dimaano, A.C. No. 7781, 12 September 2008

ISSUE: Whether there is a violation of the Notarial Law.

RULING:

Yes. Notaries public should refrain from affixing their signature and notarial seal on a
document unless the persons who signed it are the same individuals who executed and
personally appeared before the notaries public to attest to the truth of what are stated therein.
Under Sec 1 of the Public Act No. 2103 or the Notarial Law, an instrument or document shall
be considered authentic if the acknowledgement is made in accordance with the ff.
requirements:

(a) The acknowledgment shall be made before a notary public or an officer duly
authorized by law of the country to take acknowledgments of instruments or
documents in the place where the act is done. The notary public or the officer
taking the acknowledgment shall certify that the person acknowledging the
instrument or document is known to him and that he is the same person who
executed it, and acknowledged that the same is his free act and deed. The
certificate shall be made under his official seal, if he is by law required to keep a
seal, and if not, his certificate shall so state.”
Without the appearance of the person who actually executed the document in question,
notaries public would be unable to verify the genuineness of the signature of the
acknowledging party and to ascertain that the document is the party’s free act or deed.

• Chong v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 148280, 10 July 2007

ISSUES:

1. Whether the Transfer of Right and Assumption of Obligation is enforceable. YES.

2. Whether the Special Power of Attorney is valid. YES

RULINF

● The court ruled that the parties voluntarily executed the Transfer of Rights and
Assumption of Obligation and that the same was supported by valuable consideration.
● Petitioner also executed a Special Power of Attorney in favor of Augusto Chong,
granting the latter the power to "mortgage, encumber, sell and dispose of the property.
(Simulated? Forced? No autho to sell?[there is in this case])

● The clear and unmistakable tenor of the Special Power of Attorney reveals that
petitioner specifically authorized Augusto to sell the subject lot and to settle her
obligations to third persons.

● The Special Power of Attorney is a duly notarized document and, as such, is entitled,
by law, to full faith and credit upon its face. Notarization vests upon the document the
presumption of regularity unless it is impugned by strong, complete and conclusive
proof.

● Rather than challenging its validity, petitioner admitted in open court that she signed the
Special Power of Attorney

Notarial Practice:
• 2004 Rules of Notarial Practice, AM No. 02-8-13-SC

3 1 September Cases on Notarial Practice:

• AM No. 89-11-1303 (Power of MTC, MCTC Judges as Notaries Public ex officio)
• Sec. 12, Rule 141, Revised Rules of Court (No receiving of other “fees” in excess of
prescribed by the Rules.)

• Agbulos v. Viray, A.C. No. 7350, 18 February 2013

Doing away with the essential requirement of physical presence of the affiant does not take
into account the likelihood that the documents may be spurious or that the affiants may not be
who they purport to be.
The purpose of this requirement is to enable the notary public to verify the genuineness of the
signature of the acknowledging party and to ascertain that the document is the party’s free act
and deed.

• In re Pallugna, 43 SCRA 446

With the approval and implementation of Republic Act 6031 amending Section 82 of the
Judiciary Act, which increased the salaries of municipal judges, the previous
authorization to said officials to pursue any other vocation, including the practice of law, had
been withdrawn. In fact, pursuant to the foregoing provision, the Department of Justice issued
its Circular No. 37 on 22 June 1971, expressly prohibiting municipal judges from engaging in
the private practice of law or from giving professional advice to clients.

Sections 235 and 242 of the Revised Administrative Code actually imposed certain
restrictions on the activities of municipal judges. From the provisions of these sections, it is clear
that not only were municipal judges prohibited by law to engage in regular notarial work, but
even in the discharge of the duties of ex officio notaries public, which they are allowed to
perform, the municipal judges are further subject to the limitation that such ex officio function
shall be exercisable only within the territorial limits of the municipalities over which they
have jurisdiction.

• Villarin et. al. v. Sabate, Jr. A.C. No. 9364, 8 February 2017
Having signed the Verification of the pleading, he cannot swear that he appeared before himself
as Notary Public.

ISSUE:
Whether Atty. Sabate failed to exercise due diligence.

RULING:
Yes.

While Atty. Sabate acted in good faith, the fact remains that the same cannot be condoned. He
failed to state in the preliminary statements of said motion/answer that the three respondents
were represented by their designated attorneys-in-fact. Besides, having signed the
Verification of the pleading, he cannot swear that he appeared before himself as Notary Public.

• Nunga v. Viray, A.C. No. 4758, 30 April 1999

ISSUE: Whether Viray violated Notarial Practice Law.

RULING:
Yes. In this case, the SC concurred with the Report of the Investigating Commissioner that
respondent Atty. Viray did not have a commission as notary public in 1987 and 1991 when
he notarized the assailed documents.

Respondent knew that he could not exercise the powers or perform the duties of a notary public
unless he was duly appointed as such pursuant to the Notarial Law (Chapter 11, Title IV, Book
I, Revised Administrative Code). He tried to impress upon the investigating commissioner that
since “1965 to date” he has always been commissioned as a notary public. Yet, he was unable
to rebut complainant’s evidence that he was not so commissioned for the years in question.

• Albano v. Gapusan, A.M. No. 1022-MJ, 7 May 1976

ISSUE:
Whether Judge Gapusan committed a malpractice as a notary. - YES

RULING:
● Before the new Civil Code, it was held that the extrajudicial dissolution of the conjugal
partnership without judicial sanction was void.
● A notary should not facilitate the disintegration of a marriage and the family by
encouraging the separation of the spouses and extrajudically dissolving the
conjugal partnership.
● Notaries were severely censured by the Court for notarizing documents which subvert
the institutions of marriage and the family. Gapusan as a member of the bar should be
censured for having notarized the void separation agreement.
● However, his notarization of that document does not warrant any disciplinary action
against him as a municipal judge (he was appointed in 1946 as justice of the peace)
especially considering that his appointment to the judiciary was screened by the
Commission on Appointments.

• De Bernado v. Restauro, A.C. No. 3894, 25 June 2003

The principal function of a notary public is to authenticate documents. When a notary
public certifies to the due execution and delivery of a document under his hand and seal, he
gives the document the force of evidence. Indeed, one of the purposes of requiring documents
to be acknowledged before a notary public, in addition to the solemnity which should surround
the execution and delivery of documents, is to authorize such documents to be given
without further proof of their execution and delivery.

• Zoreta v. Simpliciano, A.C. No. 6492, 18 November 2004

1 The practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the State on those who show
that they possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications required by law for the
conferment of such privilege; An attorney may be disbarred, or suspended for any violation of
his oath or of his duties as an attorney and counselor, which include statutory grounds
enumerated in Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, all of these being broad enough to
cover practically any misconduct of a lawyer in his professional or private capacity.

2. Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act—it is invested with substantive public
interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public.

3.The lawyer’s act of notarizing documents without the requisite commission therefor is
reprehensible, constituting as it does not only malpractice but also the crime of
falsification of public documents; Respondent barred from being commissioned as a notary
public permanently and suspended from the practice of law for two (2) years.

• Anudon v. Cefra, A.C. No. 5482, 10 February 2015

Whoever acts as Notary Public must ensure that the parties executing the document be
present. Otherwise, their participation with respect to the document cannot be acknowledged.
Notarization of a document in the absence of the parties is a breach of duty.

• Almazan, Sr. v. Suerte-Felipe, A.C. No. 7184, 17 September

2014
ISSUE: Whether respondent violated Notarial Law.

RULING:

Yes. The SC concurs with the findings of the IBP.

Respondent himself admitted that he was commissioned as notary public only in the City of
Pasig and the Municipalities of Taguig, Pateros, San Juan and Mandaluyong for the years
1998-1999. He could not notarize the subject document’s acknowledgement in the City of
Marikina, as said notarial act is beyond the jurisdiction of the commissioning court, the RTC of
Pasig.

The territorial limitation of a notary public’s jurisdiction is crystal clear from Sec 11, Rule III of
the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

Sec. 11. Jurisdiction and Term.—A person commissioned as notary public may perform
notarial acts in any place within the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court for a
period of two (2) years commencing the first day of January of the year in which the
commissioning court is made, unless either revoked or the notary public has resigned
under these Rules and the Rules of Court.

It is also stated in the Notarial Law found in Sec 240, Chapter 12, Book V, Volume I of the
Revised Administrative Code.
While seemingly appearing to be a harmless incident, respondent’s act of notarizing documents
in a place outside of or beyond the authority granted by his notarial commission, partakes of
malpractice of law and falsification.

• Cabanilla v. Cristal-Tenorio, A.C. No. 6139, 11 November

2003
ISSUE:
Whether the respondent notarized the deed of sale without the complainant Dominador
Cabanilla and his children (Manuel Cabanilla, et al.) appearing before her. (YES – indicated
“please change”: he shouldve not notarized the deed: a meticulous and conscientous NP should
have not.)

RULING:

● Under Section 1(a) of Act 2103, a notary public taking the acknowledgment in a
document or instrument is mandated to certify that the person acknowledging the
instrument or document is known to him and that he is the same person who
executed it and acknowledged that the same is his free act and deed.
● To "acknowledge before" means to avow; to own as genuine, to assert, to admit; and
"before" means in front or preceding in space or ahead of. A party acknowledging must
appear before the notary public.
● The presentation of the residence certificate is required where a document is
acknowledged before a notary public to ascertain the identity/identities of the person/s
appearing before him and to avoid impostors.

• Boers v. Calubaquib, A.C. No. 10562, 1 August 2017

The notarial registry is a record of the notary public’s official acts. Acknowledged
documents and instruments recorded in it are considered public documents. If the document
or instrument does not appear in the notarial records and there is no copy of it therein,
doubt is engendered that the document or instrument was not really notarized, so that it is not
a public document and cannot bolster any claim made based on this document.

Considering the evidentiary value given to notarized documents, the failure of the notary
public to record the document in his notarial registry is tantamount to falsely making it
appear that the document was notarized when in fact it was not.

• Bautista v. Bernabe, A.C. No. 6963, 9 February 2006

 (1) A notary public should not notarize documents unless the persons who signed the
same are the very same persons who executed and personally appeared before them to
attest the contents and truth of what are stated therein.
(2) The act of notarizing a joint affidavit in the absence of one of the affiants is in
violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the
Notarial Law; By affixing his signature and notarial seal on the instrument, a notary
public leads the public to believe that the affiant personally appeared before him and
attested to the truth and veracity of the document when in truth and in fact another
person signed it.
(3) A member of the bar who performs an act as a notary public should not notarize a
document unless the persons who signed the document are the very same persons who
executed and personally appeared before him; The acts of the affiant cannot be
delegated to anyone for what are stated therein are facts of which they have
personal knowledge.

• Almario v. Llera-Agno, A.C. No. 10689, 8 January 2018

Notaries public are absolutely prohibited or forbidden from notarizing a fictitious or
spurious document. They are the law's vanguards and sentinels against illegal deeds. The
confidence of the public in the integrity of notarial acts would be undermined and impaired if
notaries public do not observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of
their duties spelled out in the notarial law.

• Solarte v. Pugeda, A.C. No. 4751, 31 July 2000

ISSUE: Whether respondent is guilty of violating Notarial Law.

RULING:

No. Nothing in the law prohibits a notary public from acting at the same time as witness in
the document he notarized. The only exception is when the document to be notarized is a will.
(this case it was only for partition of property)

Complainant offered no proof, but only mere allegations, that (1) respondent was involved in the
partition of the subject property, and that (2) respondent employed fraud to effect such
partition. Such a grave charge against a member of the bar and former municipal judge needs
concrete substantiation to gain credence.

• Protacio v. Mendoza, A.C. No. 5764, 13 January 2003

ISSUE:
Whether Atty. Mendoza was negligent in the performance of his duty as a notary public. –
YES (party to document did not personally appear to affirm the contents: Nemoto(japanese-
signed after returning to Ph? = did not cure.)

● Act No. 21038 provides:

SECTION 1. (a) The acknowledgment shall be made before a notary public or an

officer duly authorized by law of the country to take acknowledgments of
instruments or documents in the place where the act is done. The
notary public or the officer taking the acknowledgment shall certify that
the person acknowledging the instrument or document is known to him and that he is the
same person who executed it, and acknowledged that the same is his free
act and deed. The certificate shall be made under his official seal, if he is
by law required to keep a seal, and if not, his certificate shall so state.
● It is necessary that a party to any document notarized by a notary public appear in
person before the latter and affirm the contents and truth of what are stated in the document.
The importance of this requirement cannot be gainsaid.
● The acknowledgement of a document is not an empty meaningless act. By it a private
document is converted into a public document, making it admissible in court without further
proof of its authenticity.
***SEC. 245. Notarial register. — Every notary public shall keep a register to be known as
the notarial register, wherein record shall be made of all his official
acts as notary
Such register shall be kept in books to be furnished by the Attorney-General to any
notary public upon request and upon payment of the actual cost thereof, but officers
exercising the functions of notaries public ex officio shall be supplied with the register at
Government expense.

• Gokioco v. Mate, A.C. No. 4179, 11 November 2004

The act of notarization is invested with substantive public interest such that only those
who are qualified or authorized may perform the duties of notaries public. This responsibility is
more pronounced when the notary public is a lawyer.
A graver responsibility is placed upon him by reason of his solemn oath to obey the laws
and to do no falsehood or consent to the doing of any. He is mandated to the sacred duties
appertaining to his office, such duties, being dictated by public policy and impressed with public
interest.

4 8 September Cases on Jurat and Acknowledgment:

• Tigno v. Sps. Aquino, G.R. No. 129416, 25 November 2004
ISSUE: Whether or not there was a defect in the notarization of the Deed of Sale (YES since
Judge Carino notarized the deed as a notary public ex officio)

RULING: YES. Court held there were palpable errors in the certification. Moreover, the
document is certified by way of a jurat instead of an acknowledgment.

A jurat is a distinct creature from an acknowledgment. An acknowledgment is the act of one

who has executed a deed in going before some competent officer or court and declaring it to be
his act or deed(due to his free act); while a jurat is that part of an affidavit where the officer
certifies that the same was sworn before him(he executed it- and its true).

Under Section 127 of the Land Registration Act, which has been replicated in Section 112 of
Presidential Decree No. 1529, the Deed of Sale should have been acknowledged before a
notary public. (WHY necessary Acknowledgement than Jurat - Atty Sana. Whats the
difference?)

***as far back as 1980 in Borre v. Moya, the Court explicitly declared that municipal court
judges such as Cariño may notarize only documents connected with the exercise of their
official duties.

The Deed of Sale was not connected with any official duties of Judge Cariño, and there was no
reason for him to notarize it.

• Gamildo v. New Bilibid Prisons Officials, G.R. No. 114829,

1 March 1995

● A jurat is not a part of a pleading but merely evidences the fact that the affidavit was
properly made.
● In a jurat, the affiant must sign the document in the presence of and take his oath before
a notary public or any other person authorized to administer oaths.
● The party acknowledging must likewise appear before the notary public or any other
person authorized to take acknowledgments of instruments or documents.
● Notaries public and others authorized by law to administer oaths or to take
acknowledgments should not take for granted the solemn duties appertaining to their
offices

• In-n-Out Burger, Inc. v. Sehwani, Inc. and/or Benita’s

Frites, Inc., G.R. No. 179127 24 December 2008

The jurat of the Secretary’s certificate reads:

“Subscribed and sworn to me this 20th day of August 2007 in

 Irving California.

(Sgd.)

Rachel A. Blake

Notary Public

Respondent’s aver that the said Secretary’s Certificate cannot properly authorize Atty.
Baranda(Ph Notary Public) to sign the Verification/Certification.

Respondent: Rachel Blake, failed to state that(Atty SANA - 3 present for a valid
ACKNOWLEDEGEMENT): (1) petitioner’s Corporate Secretary, Mr. Wensinger, was known to
her; (2) he was the same person who acknowledged the instrument; and (3) he acknowledged
the same to be his free act and deed, as required under Section 2 of Act No. 2103 and
Landingin v. Republic of the Philippines.

1. Personally known 2. Same person who acknowledges 3. Free and Voluntary Act.

ISSUE: Whether Atty Baranda has authority to sign the verification.

RULING:

(What words distinguish? Atty Sana.)

Yes. The SC held that respondents’ contentions are not applicable to the present case. The
requirements enumerated therein refer to documents which require an
acknowledgement, and not a mere jurat.

• Bides-Ulaso v. Atty. Noe-Lacsamana, A.C. No. 7297, 29

September 2009

ISSUE:

Whether the respondent should be held liable. - YES

RULING:

· Respondent maintains that her signature was made not to fool the trial court, but
only to illustrate to her new secretary how and where Bides should sign the form; and
 that the amended verification and affidavit of non-forum shopping, merely a
"sample-draft," was wrongly attached.

· Investigating Commissioner Velez found that the respondent had deliberately and
with malice led the trial court to believe that her signature in the amended
verification and affidavit of non-forum shopping had been that of Bides.

· The respondent, by notarizing the document sans the signature of Bides, was only
anticipating that Bides would subsequently sign, because, after all, Bides had
already signed the original verification and affidavit.

• Jandoquile v. Atty. Revilla, Jr., A.C. No. 9514, 10 April 2013

(Atty Sana - Jurat: affiant needs to be present. If personally known no need for
IDENTIFICATION - but state in Jurat that he is personally known.)
ISSUE:
Whether Atty. Revilla is guilty of violating notarial law. Notarized for Sister, Wife, House-boy.

RULING:
Yes, Atty. Revilla, Jr. was clearly disqualified to notarize the complaint-affidavit of his
relatives within the fourth civil degree of affinity. Further, while he has a valid defense as to
the second charge, it does not exempt him from liability for violating the disqualification rule.

First charge: notarizing the complaint-affidavit of his relative within fourth civil degree.
Section 3(c), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice clearly disqualifies him from
notarizing the complaint-affidavit, from performing the notarial act, since two of the affiants or
principals are his relatives within the fourth civil degree of affinity.

****Section 6, Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. A “jurat” refers to an act in
which an individual on a single occasion:
(a) appears in person before the notary public and presents an instrument
or document;
(b) is personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public through
competent evidence of identity;
(c) signs the instrument or document in the presence of the notary; and
(d) takes an oath or affirmation before the notary public as to such instrument
or document.

• Anudon v. Atty. Cefra, A.C. No. 5482, 10 February 2015

Repeat case - Whoever acts as Notary Public must ensure that the parties executing the
document be present. Otherwise, their participation with respect to the document cannot be
acknowledged. Notarization of a document in the absence of the parties is a breach of duty.

• Dr. Malvar v. Atty. Baleros, A.C. No. 11346, 8 March 2017

The unsubstantiated claim of the respondent that the complainant appeared before her and
signed the contested document in her presence cannot prevail over the evidence supplied
by the complainant pointing that it was highly improbable if not impossible for him to appear
before the respondent on the date so alleged that the subject document was notarized.

Aside from forbidding notarization without the personal presence of the affiant, the Notarial
Rules demands the submission of competent evidence of identity such as an identification card
with photograph and signature which requirement can be dispensed with provided that the
notary public personally knows the affiant. (ID or under Oath identification of a non-privy:
Section 12 of Rule II of the Notarial Rules)

If the document or instrument does not appear in the notarial records and there is no copy of
it therein, doubt is engendered that the document or instrument was not really notarized, so
that it is not a public document and cannot bolster any claim made based on this document.

The respondent’s delegation of her notarial function of recording entries in her notarial
register to her staff is a clear contravention of the explicit provision of the Notarial Rules
dictating that such duty be fulfilled by her and not somebody else.

Atty Sana. Acknowledgement v Jurat.

Execution;

Both person needs to be before the Notary

Acknowledgement:(Made by the NOTARY PUBLIC) extra step - declaration that the contents
are free and voluntary.

Jurat:(Made by the Affiant).

Words;

Acknowledgement: Certify that affiant is; 1) personally known or present before the NP, 2) same
person executing the instrument, 3) Document is freely and voluntarily made.

Jurat: Subscribed and Sworn to me (Affiant)

Purpose;

Acknowledgment - certify free and voluntary act.

Jurat - facts are true and accurate.

5 15 September Cases on Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping:

• Fernandez v. Villegas, G.R. No. 200191, 20 August 2014

1. Court laid down guidelines with non-compliance with the requirements /or submission of a
defective verification and certification against forum shopping. (6 items).

3. Art 487 of the Civil Code explicitly provides that any of the co-owners may bring an
action for ejectment, without the necessity of joining all the other co-owners as co-
plaintiffs because the suit is deemed to be instituted for the benefit of all.

Guidelines with respect to noncompliance with the requirements on submission of a

defective verification and certification against forum shopping, viz.:

1) A distinction must be made between non-compliance with the requirement on or

submission of defective verification, and noncompliance with the requirement on or
submission of defective certification against forum shopping.

2) As to verification, non-compliance therewith or a defect therein does not necessarily

render the pleading fatally defective. The court may order its submission or correction or
act on the pleading if the attending circumstances are such that strictcompliance with the
Rule may be dispensed with in order that the endsof justice may be served thereby.

3) Verification is deemed substantially complied with when one who has ample
knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations in the complaint or petition signs the
verification, and when matters alleged in the petition have been made in good faith or
are true and correct.

[In this case: Lourdes Fernandez is a CO-OWNER with her sister Cecilia Siapno – she
has “ample knowledge, and truth as to matters alleged”]

4) As to certification against forum shopping, non-compliance therewith or a defect

therein, unlike in verification, is generally not curable by its subsequent submission or
correction thereof, unless there is a need to relax the Rule on the ground of "substantial
compliance" or presence of "special circumstances or compelling reasons."

5) The certification against forum shopping must be signed by all the plaintiffs or
petitioners in a case; otherwise, those who did not sign will be dropped as parties to the
case. Under reasonable or justifiable circumstances, however, as when all the
plaintiffs or petitioners share a common interest and invoke a common cause of action or
defense, the signature of only one of them in the certification against forum shopping
substantially complies with the Rule.
 [In this case because they are CO-OWNERS: In fact, Art 487 Civ Code explicitly
provides that any of the co-owners may bring an action for ejectment, without the
necessity of joining all the other co-owners as co-plaintiffs because the suit is deemed to
be instituted for the benefit of all.

6) Finally, the certification against forum shopping must be executed by the party-
pleader, not by his counsel. If, however, for reasonable or justifiable reasons, the party-
pleader is unable to sign, he must execute a Special Power of Attorney designating his
counsel of record to sign on his behalf.37 (Emphases supplied)

• Ingles v. Estrada et. al., G.R. No. 141809, 8 April 2013

ISSUE: Whether the CA erred in dismissing the Ingleses’ certiorari petition on the ground of
non-compliance with the requirements on verification and certification against forum shopping.

RULING:

Yes.

A certiorari petition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is one where the pleadings required to
be both verified and accompanied by a certification against forum shopping when filed
before a court. While both verification and certification against forum shopping are concurring
requirements in a certiorari petition, one requirement is distinct from the other in terms of
nature and purpose.

The case of Altres vs Empleo laid out the guiding principles that synthesized the various
jurisprudential pronouncements regarding non-compliance with the requirements on, or
submission of a defective, verification and certification against forum shopping.

xxx

3) Verification is deemed substantially complied with when one who has ample
knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations in the complaint or petition
signs the verification, and when matters alleged in the petition have been made in
good faith or are true and correct.

Xxx

Guided by the Altres precedent, the Court finds that the dismissal by the RTC and CA of the
Ingleses’ certiorari petition on the ground of a defective verification and certification against
forum shopping to be incorrect. (In this case only one of the petitioners signed the verification
and certification against forum shopping)
• Altres et. al. v. Empleo et. al., G.R. No. 180986, 10 December
2008
● On the requirement of a certification of non-forum shopping, the well-settled rule
is that all the petitioners must sign the certification of non-forum shopping.
● The reason for this is that the persons who have signed the certification cannot be
presumed to have the personal knowledge of the other non-signing petitioners with
respect to the filing or non-filing of any action or claim the same as or similar to the
current petition.
● The rule, however, admits of an exception and that is when the petitioners show
reasonable cause for failure to personally sign the certification. The petitioners must be
able to convince the court that the outright dismissal of the petition would defeat the
administration of justice. (In this case 11/59 petitioners signed effect = it would not
dismiss the case but those who did not sign are dropped as parties to the case!)

• Sari-sari Group of Companies v. PIGLAS, G.R. No. 164624,

11 August 2008

ISSUE:
Whether CA erred in taking cognizance of the petition considering that only ‘Jose Del Carmen’
signed and verified the petition. (Only the one of the employees re a labor dispute)

RULING:
NO.

A distinction must be made between non-compliance with the requirements for Verification and
noncompliance with those for Certification of Non-Forum Shopping.

(1)As to Verification, non-compliance therewith does not necessarily render the pleading fatally
defective; hence, the court may order a correction if Verification is lacking; or act on the
pleading although it is not verified, if the attending circumstances are such that strict compliance
with the Rules may be dispensed with in order that the ends of justice may thereby be
served.

(2) On the other hand, the lack of a Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping, unlike that of
Verification is generally not curable by the submission thereof after the filing of the petition.

The submission of a certificate against forum shopping is thus deemed obligatory, albeit not
jurisdictional.

The rule on certification against forum shopping may, however, be also relaxed on grounds of
“substantial compliance” or “special circumstances or compelling reasons.”
• Rombe Eximatrade v. Asiatrust, G.R. No. 164479, 13
February 2008

Rombe, the signatory of the petition, Esmael C. Ferrer, Asiatrust's Manager and Head of
the Acquired Assets Unit, was not authorized by Asiatrust's Board of Directors to sign
Asiatrust's petition and the CA

Issue: Whether Rombe’s reliance on the Premium. Case is correct (NO) / Whether there was
sufficient compliance with the verification and certification requirements (YES)

RULING: Rombe's reliance on Premium is misplaced. The issue in Premium is not the authority
of the president of Premium to sign the verification and certification against forum shopping in
the absence of a valid authority from the board of directors. The real issue in Premium is, who
between the two sets of officers, both claiming to be the legal board of directors, had the
authority to file the suit for and on behalf of the company. Premium is inapplicable to this case.

On the matter of verification, the purpose of the verification requirement is to assure that
the allegations in a petition were made in good faith or are true and correct, not merely
speculative. The verification requirement is deemed substantially complied with when
one who has ample knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations in the petition
signed

*** Board Resolution to authorize officer to sign the certification against FS!!

• Chinese YMCA v. Remington Steel, G.R. No. 159422, 28

March 2008
The requirement that the petitioner should sign the Verification and Certification of Non-Forum
Shopping applies even to corporations, considering that the mandatory directives of the Rules of
Court make no distinction between natural and juridical persons.

• Juaban and Zosa v. Espina and Cebu Discovery Bay, G.R.

No. 170049, 14 March 2008
In short dismissal on the grounds of forum shopping is NOT similar to non-compliance to the
certification against non-forum requirement

Forum shopping exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final
judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other.

However, forum shopping as a ground for the dismissal of actions is distinct and separate
from the failure to submit a proper Certificate against Forum Shopping.
One need not be held liable for forum shopping for his complaint to be dismissed on the ground
of an absence or a defect in the Certificate against Forum Shopping.

One can be liable for forum shopping regardless of the presence or absence of a Certification
against Forum Shopping. The presence of a Certification in such a case would only have the
effect of making the person committing forum shopping additionally liable for perjury (Juaban
and Zosa vs. Espina). (From Mr. Sante HAHA)

• Pacquing v. Coca-Cola, G.R. No. 157966, 31 January 2008

ISSUE: Whether there is substantial compliance with the verification certificate.

RULING:

YES. While the general rule is that the certificate of non-forum shopping must be signed by all
the plaintiffs in a case and the signature of only one of them is insufficient, the Court has
stressed that the 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

• Palao v. Florentino III International, Inc., G.R. No. 186967,

18 January 2017

ISSUE:
Whether the CA erred in reversing the Order of Intellectual Property Office Director General. -
NO

RULING:

● The need for a certification of non-forum shopping to be attached to respondent's appeal

before the Office of the Director General of the Intellectual Property Office is established.
● Section 3 of the Intellectual Property Office's Uniform Rules on Appeal specifies the
form through which appeals may be taken to the Director General.
● Section 4(e) specifies the need for a certification of non-forum shopping.
● These requirements notwithstanding, the Intellectual Property Office's own Regulations
on Inter Partes Proceedings specify that the Intellectual Property Office "shall not be
bound by the strict technical rules of procedure and evidence.
● Section 5(b) of the Intellectual Property Office's Uniform Rules on Appeal expressly
enables appellants, who failed to comply with Section 4's formal requirements, to
subsequently complete their compliance.
• Cortal et. al. v. Larrazabal Enterprises, G.R. No. 199107, 30
August 2017

ISSUE:
Whether CA was correct in dismissing the Petition for having a defective Verification.

RULING:
No.

A: The defective verification amounted to a mere formal defect that was neither jurisdictional nor
fatal and for which a simple correction could have been ordered by the Court of Appeals.

An affiant verifies a pleading to indicate that he or she has read it and that to his or her
knowledge and belief, its allegations are true and correct and that it has been prepared in good
faith and not out of mere speculation.

Jurisprudence has considered the lack of verification as a mere formal, rather than a
jurisdictional, defect that is not fatal.

6 22 September Judicial Affidavit Rule, A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC, and

Practical Exercise
- Read in Relation of the Continuous Trial Rule.
- 1st and 2nd level courts + SB + CTA + Sharia +Investigations in IBP + Spl Courts – QD –
as long as the rules provide or if they adopt the regular rules of procedure.
- JA – submission = actual/direct presentation of the witness.
- When? – Civil Cases: Before – no later than 5 days before PT. NOW – with the
complaint and the answer! (more formal)
- Only Direct presentation – Cross-Examination: must be present!
- How taken in Criminal Case: Same 5 days +PT - brief! Not more than 10 days before he
testifies in Court.
- Another in Guide of Cont Trial – written statements in police/fiscal = JA!. (different
options) [para di ka na pumunta sa bilibid] (May be also shown on court saved on Mind)
QC – presentation in open court.
- Attestation of Lawyer (Very Important).
 - Pre-pandemic- Face to face – lawyer-witness-notary[supposed in practice X]. During- no
rules yet? Conducted still in person.

Atty Tranquil – History of JA, and How Used.

Motion – Court/defendant response

Manifestation – Court may accept or reject on its face