CaseDig: Heirs of Dicman vs. Carino

G.R. No. 146459, June 8, 2006
By: Jan Placido on July 26, 2018



FACTS:

The petition originated from an action for recovery of possession of eastern half of a parcel of land situated in Residence Section "J" Camp Seven, Baguio City. On May 23, 1995, Guzman Carino filed a Free Patent Application over the land in question. The application was given due course, but Guzman later withdrew it when he decided to file his opposition to the petition later filed by the heirs of Ting-el Dicman. The petition sought to establish ownership over Lot 76-A and Lot 76-B. Guzman Carino opposed the petition insofar as he insisted ownership over Lot 76-B.

The RTC rendered decision in favor of private respondents stating that Guzman Carino had been in open and continuous possession of the property in good faith and in the concept of owner from 1938 until his death in 1982. Their motion for reconsideration was denied. When they brought an appeal before the CA, the CA dismissed the petition and affirmed in toto the ruling of the RTC. Thereafter, a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 was filed before the SC.

On March 2, 2001, petitioners filed their Manifestation and Motion to Substitute Babing Cosil and Cristina Alawas With Respective Heirs stating, among others, that Julio F. Dicman, son of petitioner Ernesto Dicman, had been appointed by petitioners to sign the petition for and in their behalf, but due to distance and time constraint, he was not able to submit the same in time for the deadline for the petition on February 12, 2001.

Private respondent argued that the petition should not be given due course. He argued that the petition failed to comply with the requirements for verification and certification of non-forum shopping. The affiant of the petition is not a principal party in the case; rather, he is merely a son of Ernesto Dicman, one of the petitioners. Petitioners invoked substantial compliance and prayed that the Court overlook the procedural lapse in the interest of justice.


ISSUE: Whether or not the petition should be dismissed


HELD: Yes, the petition should be dismissed.


1. Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires the pleader to submit a certificate of non-forum shopping to be executed by the plaintiff or principal party, is mandatory, and non-compliance therewith is a sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition.[24] The forum shopping certification must be signed by the party himself as he has personal knowledge of the facts therein stated.[25] Obviously, it is the plaintiff or principal party who is in the best position to know whether he actually filed or caused the filing of a petition in the case.[26] Where there are two or more plaintiffs or petitioners, all of them must sign the verification and non-forum certification, and the signature of only one of them is insufficient,[27] unless the one who signs the verification and certification has been authorized to execute the same by, and on behalf of, the co-plaintiff or co-petitioner.[28] But it must be stressed that the requirement the principal party himself should sign the certification applies only to a natural person and not to a juridical person which can only act through its officer or duly authorized agent.[29]
However, the Court has also held that the rules on forum shopping were designed to promote and facilitate the orderly administration of justice and thus should not be interpreted with such absolute literalness as to subvert its own ultimate and legitimate objective. The rule of substantial compliance may be availed of with respect to the contents of the certification. This is because the requirement of strict compliance with the provisions regarding the certification of non-forum shopping merely underscores its mandatory nature in that the certification cannot be altogether dispensed with or its requirements completely disregarded.[30] Thus, under justifiable circumstances, the Court has relaxed the rule requiring the submission of such certification considering that although it is obligatory, it is not jurisdictional.[31]

But a perusal of the relevant decisions handed down by this Court consistently shows that substantial compliance may be invoked and the procedural lapse overlooked provided that, where the petitioner is a natural person as in the case at bar, the authorized signatory must also be a principal party or co-petitioner.[32] Petitioners, as natural persons, cannot therefore appoint a non-party to sign for them, especially since only the petitioners occupy the best position to know whether they actually filed or caused the filing of a petition in this case and who personally know the facts stated in the petition. On this point alone the petition should be dismissed.

2. It is a settled rule that in the exercise of the Supreme Courts power of review, the Court is not a trier of facts and does not normally undertake the re-examination of the evidence presented by the contending parties during the trial of the case considering that the findings of facts of the CA are conclusive and binding on the Court. While jurisprudence has recognized several exceptions in which factual issues may be resolved by this Court, namely: (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of facts are conflicting; (6) when in making its findings the CA went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to the trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioners main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; and (11) when the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, could justify a different conclusion,[33] none of these exceptions has been shown to apply in the present case and, hence, this Court may not review the findings of fact made by the lower courts.