ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 161718. September 20, 2004]

MIAA vs. DING VELAYO SPORTS

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEP 20 2004 .

G.R. No. 161718 (Manila Int'l. Airport Authority vs. Ding Velayo Sports Center, Inc.)

On April 12, 2004, respondent filed a Manifestation and Motion, pointing out that the petition was dated March 2, 2004, while the verification and certification thereof was executed as early as February 26, 2004. Respondent then argues that petitioner could not have attested to the truth of the allegations in the petition on February 26, 2004 if the petition was prepared only on March 2, 2004. In view of such defect, respondent prayed that the petition be dismissed.

On June 7, 2004, the Court issued a Resolution requiring petitioner to file Comment on said Manifestation and Motion. In compliance with said resolution, petitioner filed the present Comment stating the following:

1. The draft petition had to be submitted by the OGCC's handling lawyer, Atty. Mary Josephine Mendoza, to her superior, Atty. Paras. The handling lawyer then began reproducing the voluminous documentary annexes. When the draft petition was approved by Atty. Paras, but before the handling lawyer finalized the petition, she requested Atty. Paras to already execute the Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping to expedite matters. This was done by Atty. Paras on February 26, 2004. The final printing of the copy of the petition which had been approved by Atty. Paras was, however, done only on March 2, 2004 because of the time involved in reproducing the voluminous documentary annexes. Hence, the difference in the date of execution of the Verification/Certification and the date on the petition. However, the petition dated March 2, 2004 is basically the same as the draft petition that Atty. Paras had read and approved.

2. Attached to the Comment is an affidavit of Atty. Oscar Paras stating that he re-affirms the allegations contained in the Petition for Review on Certiorari to be true and correct of his own personal knowledge and information.

3. The verification and certification arc merely formal and not jurisdictional requirements and technical rules of procedure should not be used to frustrate substantial justice.

We find the foregoing explanation for the discrepancy in the date of the petition and date of the execution of the verification and certification of non-forum shopping to be reasonable.

Furthermore, we have repeatedly ruled that the purpose of requiring a verification is to secure an assurance that the allegations of the petition have been made in good faith; or are true and correct, not merely speculative. This requirement is simply a condition affecting the form of pleadings, and noncompliance therewith does not necessarily render it fatally defective. Indeed, verification is only a formal, not a jurisdictional, requirement. ^[1] cralaw Thus, the affidavit of Atty. Oscar Paras, submitted by petitioner with its Comment on respondent's Manifestation and Motion, was sufficient to cure whatever defect the verification and certification of non-forum shopping had.

In view of the foregoing, respondent's motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that the verification was defective for having been executed prior to the date appearing on the petition, is hereby DENIED.

Petitioner is hereby ordered to file its REPLY to respondent's Comment within ten (10) days from receipt hereof.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

^[1] cralaw Torres vs. Specialized Packaging Dev't. Corp., G.R. No. 149634, July 6, 2004

Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
2013

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011