MARY LOUSIENE P. TRINIDAD, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
SADANG, J.:
The Office of the Solicitor General filed its Comment to the motion on January 7, 2015.
Admitting that her petition has no verification and certification of non-forum shopping, petitioner states that said non-compliance was due to the inadvertent omission “by the law firm’s clerk.” The reason cited by petitioner is hardly a compelling or justifiable reason for the court to depart from the strict application of the rules. That the matter of complying with the rules was left to a clerk does not speak well of the importance accorded by the law firm to the procedural requirements. It is the duty of counsel to know the rules of procedure and to personally see to it that they are complied with. He can ill afford to adopt a nonchalant attitude and rely on his clerk to do his work because that could result in serious legal consequences. Then, to compound her non-compliance with the rules, petitioner filed a belated verification/certificate of non-forum shopping which was subscribed and sworn to on July 23, 2014.[3] As correctly pointed out by the Office of the Solicitor General in its Comment,4 the verification/certificate of non-forum shopping cannot be used for the petition because the petition is dated July 28, 2014. Indeed, at the time that petitioner executed the verification/certificate of non-forum shopping there was yet no petition to speak of. To now admit the verification/certificate of non-forum shopping would make a mockery of the rules. This cannot be countenanced.
WHEREFORE, the Omnibus Motion is DENIED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Librea-Leagogo, J.,Chairperson, and Diamante, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, pp. 77-87.
[2] Id., pp. 74-76.
[3] Rollo, p. 89
[4] Ibid., pp. 97-101