Vda de Formoso v. Pnb
Vda de Formoso v. Pnb...
VDA DE FORMOSO V. PNB DOCTRINE: • The Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping should be signed by all the Petitioners or Plaintiffs in a case, and that the signing by only one of them is insufficient. • The attestation on Non-Forum Shopping requires personal knowledge by the party executing the same, and the lone signing Petitioner cannot be presumed to have personal knowledge of the filing or non-filing by his co-petitioners of any action or claim the same as similar to the current petition. EMERGENCY RECIT: • Nellie and her late husband obtained a loan from PNB, secured by a real estate mortgage. After some time, Nellie and her 5 children executed an SPA in favor or Malcaba, authorizing him to secure all papers and documents pertaining to the loan with real estate mortgage. The Fromosos eventually sold the mortgaged real properties to Malcaba. Malcaba went to PNB to pay the loan and satisfy the obligation of the Formosos. PNB refused the tender of payment. This prompted Petitioners to filed a complaint for specific performance against PNB, for it to accept the payment tendered. RTC, ruled in favor of Petitioners. However, Petitioners still filed a Petition for Relief. RTC, denied the petition. Petitioners appealed to the CA but the latter denied the petition for failure to comply with rule on the Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping. FACTS: • Nellie Panelo Vda. De Formoso (Nellie) and her 5 children executed a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) in favor of Primitivo Malcaba (Malcaba) authorizing him, among others, to secure all papers and documents including the owner’s copies of the titles of real properties pertaining to the loan with Real Estate Mortgage originally secured by Nellie and her late husband, Benjamin, from PNB. • The Formosos sold the subject mortgaged real properties to Malcaba though a Deed of Absolute Sale. Subsequently, Malcaba and his lawyer went to PNB to fully pay the loan obligation including interests. • PNB, however, allegedly refused to accept Malcaba’s tender of payment and to release the mortgage or surrender the titles of the subject mortgaged real properties. • Petitioners filed a complaint for Specific Performance against PNB in the RTC, praying, among others, that PNB be ordered to accept the amount tendered by Malcaba, as full settlement of the loan obligation of the Formosos. • OCT. 1999: RTC: Rendered a decision in favor of Petitioners. o Prayer to order PNB to accept the amount tendered GRANTED o Prayer for exemplary or corrective damages, attorney’s fees, and annual interest, and daily interest, were DENIED for lack of evidence • PNB: o Filed a Motion for Reconsideration but it was denied for failure to comply with Rule 15, Sec. 5 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure (ROCP). o Filed a Notice of Appeal but it was dismissed for being filed out of time. • NOV. 1999: Petitioners received their copy of the decision, • JAN. 2001: Petitioners filed their Petition for Relief questioning the RTC decision, that there was no testimonial evidence presented to warrant the award for moral and exemplary damages. o They reasoned out that they could not then file a motion for reconsideration because they could not get hold of a copy of the transcript of stenographic notes. • AUG. 2001: RTC: Denied the petition for lack of merit. • Petitioners moved for reconsideration but it was denied by the RTC. Petitioners appealed to the CA challenging the RTC order dated AUG. 2001. • CA: Dismissed the petition. o The Verification and Certification of Non-forum shopping was signed by only one (Macalba) of the many Petitioners. o There was no shooing that the one who signed was empowered to act for the rest. o Therefore, it cannot be presumed that the one who signed knew to the best of his knowledge whether his co-petitioners had the same or similar claims or actions filed or pending.
o The certification of non-forum shopping requires personal knowledge of the party who executed the same and that Petitioners must show reasonable cause for failure to personally sign the certification. • Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied. Hence, the present petition. ISSUE: 1. WON the Petitioners petition for certiorari that they filed before the CA substantially complied with the requirements provided for under the 1997 ROCP on Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping? 2. WON the CA erred in dismissing the Petition for Certiorari when it should have the petition due course in so far as Malcaba is concerned because he signed the certification? HELD/RATIO: 1. NO. • The Petition for Certiorari filed with the CA stated the following names as Petitoners: Nellie Vda. De Fromoso, Ma. Theresa Formoso-Pescador, Roger Fromoso, Mary Jane Formoso, Bernard Formoso, Benjamin Formoso, and Primitivo Malcaba. • Admittedly, among the 7 petitioners mentioned, only Malcaba signed the Verification and Certification of Non-forum Shopping in the subject petition. • There was no proof that Malcaba was authorized by his co-petitioners to sign for them. • There was no SPA shown by the Formosos authorizing Malcaba as their attorney-infact in filing a Petition for Review on Certiorari. Neither could the Petitioners give at least a reasonable explanation as to why only he signed the verification and certification of non-forum shopping. • In Docena vs. Lapsesura, the Court ruled that: o The Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping should be signed by all the Petitioners or Plaintiffs in a case, and that the signing by only one of them is insufficient. o The attestation on Non-Forum Shopping requires personal knowledge by the party executing the same, and the lone signing Petitioner cannot be presumed to have personal knowledge of the filing or non-filing by his co-petitioners of any action or claim the same as similar to the current petition. • In Athena Computers Inc., and Joselito R. Jimenez vs. Wesnu, the Court ruled that: o The certification against forum shopping is fatally defective, not having been duly signed by both Petitioners and thus warrants the dismissal of the Petition for Certiorari. 2. CA did not err in its decision. • The Petitioners were given a chance by the CA to comply with the Rules when they filed their motion for reconsideration, but they refused to so. o Despite the opportunity given to them to make them all sign the verification and certification of non-forum shopping, they still failed to comply. o Thus, the CA was constrained to deny their motion and affirm the earlier resolution. • Indeed, liberality and leniency were accorded in some cases. o In these cases, however, those who did not sign were relatives of the lone signatory, so unlike in this case, where Malcaba is not a relative who is similarly situated with the other Petitioners and who cannot speak for them. o In the case of Heirs of Domingo Hernandez, Sr. vs. Plaridel Mingoa, Sr. the Court ruled that: § Here, all the Petitioners are immediate relatives who share a common interest in the land sought to be recovered and a common cause of action raising the same arguments in support thereof. § There was sufficient basis, therefore for Domingo Hernandez, Jr. to speak for and in behalf of his co-petitioners when he certified that they had not filed any action or claim in another Court or Tribunal involving the same issues. § Thus, the Verification/Certification that Hernandez, Jr. executed constitutes substantial compliance under the Rules.