DANILO ANGELES, REPRESENTED BY MARIO L. MANUEL, PETITIONER, VS. HON. PRIMO G. SIO, JR., PRESIDING JUDGE OF REGIONAL TRIAL COURT (RTC), BRANCH 23, CABANATUAN CITY, SPOUSES EVANGE…

Angeles versus Sio

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari brought by Danilo Angeles, a Filipino residing in Chicago, Illinois, against the presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court of Cabanatuan City and against the spouses Evangeline Reguyal-Liwag and Winthrop Liwag and Corazon Reguyal. The petitioner asks the Supreme Court to reverse the trial court's dismissal of his complaint for annulment of deed of sale, cancellation of title, reconveyance and damages. The trial court dismissed the complaint because the verification and certification against forum shopping was signed not by the petitioner himself but by his attorney-in-fact, Cecille Santos, under a special power of attorney that did not expressly mention the authority to sign such a certification. The case matters because it fixes the rule on who may sign the certification against forum shopping when the principal party is abroad, and because it shows how the Court weighs technical rules against the higher goal of substantial justice.

Procedural History

Danilo Angeles, represented by Cecille Santos, filed the complaint for annulment of deed of sale, cancellation of title, reconveyance and damages before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 23 of Cabanatuan City, against the spouses Liwag, Corazon Reguyal and the Registry of Deeds of Cabanatuan City. After the defendants filed their answer, they moved to set the case for a preliminary hearing on their special and affirmative defenses, with a prayer for dismissal, on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to implead his spouse, that the complaint lacked a proper certification against forum shopping, that the action had prescribed and was barred by the statute of limitations, and that the plaintiff had no cause of action. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint on the sole ground of non-compliance with the rules on the certification against forum shopping, ruling that the first special power of attorney did not include the authority to sign the verification and certification, and that the second special power of attorney did not cure the defect. The plaintiff moved for reconsideration, and the trial court denied it. The plaintiff then came to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari under Rule 65, alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

Facts

Danilo Angeles is a resident of Chicago, Illinois, in the United States. He appointed Cecille Santos as his attorney-in-fact under a special power of attorney dated March 10, 2009, authorizing her to represent him in an action against Corazon Reguyal and the spouses Evangeline Reguyal-Liwag and Winthrop Liwag, to vindicate his rights as buyer of a parcel of land covered by a transfer certificate of title, and to do and perform all and every act requisite or necessary to effect that action.

On March 27, 2009, a complaint for annulment of deed of sale, cancellation of title, reconveyance and damages was filed, accompanied by a verification and certification of non-pendency of similar suit signed by Cecille Santos by virtue of that special power of attorney. The defendants answered and then moved for a preliminary hearing on their affirmative defenses, seeking dismissal on several grounds, including the alleged defect in the certification against forum shopping.

The trial court dismissed the complaint, holding that the special power of attorney did not authorize Cecille Santos to sign the certification against forum shopping. The plaintiff later submitted a second special power of attorney dated July 12, 2011, in which he ratified all the acts of Cecille Santos, including her authority to sign the verification and certification of non-forum shopping. The trial court still denied reconsideration, and the plaintiff elevated the matter to the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing the complaint on the ground that the certification against forum shopping was not signed by the plaintiff himself.
• Whether or not the special power of attorney dated March 10, 2009 authorized Cecille Santos to execute and sign the certification against forum shopping on behalf of the petitioner.
• Whether or not the subsequent special power of attorney dated July 12, 2011, ratifying her acts, cured any defect in the certification.
• Whether or not certiorari, rather than appeal, was the proper remedy against the order of dismissal.

Applicable Provisions

Section 5 of Rule 7 of the Rules of Court governs the certification against forum shopping, and the Court quotes it in full:

Section 5. Certification against forum shopping. — The plaintiff or principal party shall specify under oath in the complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn certification annexed thereto and simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he has not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof; and, (c) if he should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed. Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be curable by mere amendment of the complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon motion and after hearing. The submission of a false certification or non-compliance with any of the undertakings therein shall constitute indirect contempt of court, without prejudice to the corresponding administrative and criminal actions. If the acts of the party or his counsel clearly constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping, the same shall be ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and shall constitute direct contempt, as well as a cause for administrative sanctions.

This provision requires that the certification be executed by the plaintiff or principal party, and it is the rule the trial court applied when it dismissed the complaint.

Section 3 of Rule 3 of the Rules of Court defines who may prosecute an action through a representative, and the Court cites it to show that Cecille Santos, as attorney-in-fact, is deemed a party:

Section 3. Representatives as parties. Where the action is allowed to be prosecuted or defended by a representative or someone acting in a fiduciary capacity, the beneficiary shall be included in the title of the case and shall be deemed to be a real party in interest. A representative may be a trustee of an express trust, a guardian, an executor or administrator, or a party authorized by law or these Rules.

This provision supports the conclusion that a duly authorized representative may sign the certification in the place of the principal party.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the trial court gravely abused its discretion. The Court stressed that the rules of procedure are mere tools intended to facilitate the attainment of justice rather than frustrate it, and that when a technicality deserts its function of being an aid to justice, the Court is justified in exempting a particular case from its operation. The requirement of a certification against forum shopping should not be interpreted with absolute literalness as to subvert the goal of the rules, which is to achieve substantial justice as expeditiously as possible. The trial court should have refrained from hastily dismissing the complaint on procedural flaws, and such error is correctable by certiorari.

On the second issue, the Court examined the special power of attorney dated March 10, 2009 and found that the petitioner, a resident of Chicago, explicitly authorized Cecille Santos to vindicate his rights and protect his interests, to represent him in all stages of the proceedings, to enter into compromise agreements, and to do and perform all and every act requisite or necessary for the accomplishment of that purpose. The Court held that these circumstances justify the relaxation of the rule and constitute reasonable cause to allow Cecille Santos, as attorney-in-fact, to sign the certification against forum shopping. It relied on Wee versus Galvez, where a resident of the United States appointed her daughter as attorney-in-fact and the signing of the certification by the daughter was deemed sufficient compliance, and on Orbeta versus Sendiong, where a certification signed by a representative under a power of attorney was likewise deemed sufficient.

On the third issue, the Court noted that the petitioner subsequently submitted a special power of attorney dated July 12, 2011, ratifying all the acts of Cecille Santos, including the execution and signing of the verification and certification against forum shopping. This ratification reinforced the finding of proper compliance.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that certiorari was the proper remedy. A writ of certiorari is an extraordinary remedy designed for the correction of errors of jurisdiction, including grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, and does not include errors of judgment. Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious, arbitrary and whimsical exercise of power, patent and gross enough to amount to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law. The trial court's dismissal on a mere technicality fell within that definition.

Doctrine

The certification against forum shopping must be executed and signed by the plaintiff or principal party, because the principal has actual knowledge whether a similar action has previously been filed. If the principal party cannot sign, the one signing on his behalf must be duly authorized. A special power of attorney that authorizes the attorney-in-fact to represent the principal in all stages of the proceedings and to do all acts necessary to effect the action carries with it the authority to sign the certification against forum shopping. Where the principal resides abroad and appoints a representative in the Philippines, the signing by the representative is deemed sufficient compliance with Section 5 of Rule 7. The subsequent ratification of the representative's acts by the principal cures any defect in the authority. Finally, the rules of procedure are tools to facilitate justice, not to frustrate it, and a dismissal based on a rigid technicality, at the expense of a just resolution of the case, amounts to grave abuse of discretion correctable by certiorari.

Disposition

The petition was dismissed in the sense that the Court reversed and set aside the trial court's orders of November 14, 2011 and April 2, 2012, reinstated the complaint for annulment of deed of sale, cancellation of title, reconveyance and damages, and directed the trial court to act with dispatch in disposing of the case.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that a representative duly authorized to prosecute an action may sign the certification against forum shopping, and the rules of procedure must not be applied with absolute literalness to defeat substantial justice. Examiners like to use this case on the issue of who may sign the certification against forum shopping when the principal is abroad, and on the proper remedy of certiorari against a dismissal grounded on a mere technicality.