ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 157427.
LUALHATI vs. CA
SECOND DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this
Court dated
G.R. No. 157427 (Lucia Lualhati vs. Court of Appeals, Digital Telecommunications Philippines, Inc.)
For resolution is the private respondent's Manifestation with Motion praying that the petition for review be stricken off the record and the case be dismissed without prejudice to whatever disciplinary action that the Court may take against the erring parties.
On
To avoid legal technicality and considering that the motion for extension she filed thru Atty. Ferancullo may have been filed out of time, she asserts that she is adopting Atty. Belmi's petition although she has not yet seen and secured a copy of the same. She evinced further that Atty. Belmi would no longer represent her in connection with the said petition, and manifested that she would file a Motion to Withdraw her Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review in G.R. No. 157297.
On
In his Comment, Atty. Belmi averred that he was leaving the matter of the termination of his legal services to the discretion of the Court. The petitioner also complied with the Resolution and submitted a copy of her Motion to Withdraw Motion for Extension of Time to File a Petition for Review on Certiorari in G.R. No. 157297.
On
In the meantime, on
First. In a Letter addressed to Atty. Belmi
which was attached to her
Second. There is a marked and patent discrepancy between the signature which appears in the petition and that which appears in her other pleadings;
Third. In her April 8, 2003 manifestation, the petitioner admitted that she was not aware that Atty. Belmi earlier filed "a motion for extension of time to file a petition for review on certiorari and had, in fact, filed subsequently a petition for review on certiorari;" and
Fourth. The private respondent noted that the petitioner
purportedly signed the petition on
In her Comment, the petitioner argued that she affirmed, confirmed, and ratified the affixing of her signature on the Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping. She contended that under the doctrine of implied agency, such act is considered as her own act. She opined that the rules on forum shopping should be construed liberally.
In its Reply, the private respondent averred that a forged signature cannot become operative, valid, and legally binding even if confirmed by the party whose signature was forged. It further averred that the rules governing non-forum shopping cannot be liberally construed in such a way that a criminal act of forgery will in effect be legitimized.
Under the second paragraph of Section 4, Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, an appeal by certiorari to the Supreme Court must be accompanied by a certification against forum shopping. Section 5, Rule 7 of the said Rules, in turn, provides that it is the plaintiff or the principal party, in this case the petitioner, who should accomplish the certification against forum shopping. Even the counsel of the petitioner cannot substitute the latter in accomplishing this. [1] cralaw The reason is that only the petitioner himself has actual knowledge of whether or not he has initiated similar actions or proceedings in different courts or agencies. [2] cralaw It must be stressed that the filing of the certification of non-forum shopping is a mandatory requirement, and the failure to comply therewith shall be cause for the dismissal of the case. [3] cralaw
In this case, the petitioner, in contending that the signature appearing on the petition should be considered valid as she is ratifying the same as her act, in effect, admitted that she was not the one who executed the certification of non-forum shopping attached to her petition. In fact, she was not aware that the said petition had been filed.
As such, for having been accomplished by a party other than the petitioner herself, it is as if there was no certification of non-forum shopping attached to the petition; hence, such petition must be dismissed.
WHEREFORE, the motion to expunge the petition for review on certiorari from the records is GRANTED. The petition for review on certiorari is hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI
YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Eslaban, Jr. v. Vda. de Onorio, 360 SCRA 230 (2001).
[2] cralaw Digital Microwave Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 328 SCRA 286 (2000).
[3] cralaw Barroso v. Ampig. Jr., 328 SCRA 530 (2000).
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
