DANIEL CAPILI, PETITIONER, V. DTT TECHNICAL TRAINING CENTER REPRESENTED BY CHARLENE MALLARI, AND THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS.
CORALES, J.:
On January 3, 2014, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration[2]
of Our Resolution arguing that the failure of his counsel to sign the
petition was due to oversight and inadvertence. Petitioner asserts the
verification which states that “the allegations therein are true and
correct of my personal knowledge and/or on the basis of copies of
documents and records in my possession” substantially complied with
Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court. Furthermore, petitioner
alleged that failure to notarize the Verification and Certification of
Non-forum Shopping was a mistake on his part.
On the other hand, private respondent filed a Comment and Opposition[3]
on February 24, 2014 contending that despite the Motion for
Reconsideration petitioner still did not comply with the mandatory
provisions of the Rules of Court. Hence, private respondent prayed for
the denial of the Motion for Reconsideration.
This Court is not convinced to reconsider. Notwithstanding
the motion for reconsideration, the petition is still laden with defects
warranting the dismissal of this case. Contrary to petitioner’s
argument, he did not substantially comply with the rule on verification.
In Mahinay v. Gako,[4] the Supreme Court enunciated, viz.:
A pleading may be verified by stating that the pleaders have
read the allegations in their petition and that the same are true and
correct based either on their personal knowledge or authentic records, or based both on their personal knowledge and authentic records. While the rule gives the pleaders several ways of verifying their pleading, the use of the phrase personal knowledge or authentic records is not without any legal signification and the pleaders are not at liberty to choose any of these phrases fancifully.
Even if We consider the petitioner to have substantially complied
with the requirement on verification, the present petition is still
dismissible for failure to comply with the rule on certification of
non-forum shopping. It bears stressing that petitioner’s neglect in
certifying under oath the certification of non-forum shopping is not
curable by mere amendment but is a cause for the dismissal of the case.[5]
Moreover, counsel for petitioner claimed inadvertence and
oversight in failing to sign the petition but did not explain the
circumstances thereof. Absent valid and compelling reasons, the
requested leniency and liberality in the observance of procedural rules
appears to be an afterthought, hence, cannot be granted.[6]
WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Villon (Chairperson) and Gaerlan, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, pages 165-167.
[2] Ibid., pages 168-170.
[3] Ibid., pages 192-196.
[4] G.R. No. 165338. November 28, 2011.
[5] See Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court.
[6] See Rivera-Pascual v. Spouses Lim, G.R. No. 191837. September 19, 2012.