Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
JRRB
FUENTEBELLA V. CASTRO an identical complaint with the MTCC. motion and MR
G.R. No. 150865 | 30 June 2006 | Azcuna. J. were denied. [False certification issue]
The controversy primarily involves the application of Rule 7, Petitioners filed with the CA a petition for certiorari with
Section 5 of the Rules of Court relating to the signature preliminary injunction and/or restraining order.
appearing on the certificate of non-forum shopping, and the The petition was dismissed on the ground that the
submission of a false certification. verification and the certification against forum shopping was
signed by a certain Lourdes Pomperada without any showing
FACTS or indication that she is duly authorized by the petitioners to
Events that took place on the internment of sign for and in their behalf.
respondents late husband.
Respondent, Darlica Castro, engaged the funeral services of A motion for reconsideration of the above resolution was
petitioner Rolling Hills Memorial Park, Inc. in Bacolod City for filed by petitioner Rolling Hills Memorial Park, Inc. attaching
the interment of the remains of her husband. thereto a Secretarys Certificate signed by Monico A.
Puentevella, Jr., Corporate Secretary of petitioner
During the burial, when the casket of her deceased husband corporation, affirming therein the authority of Lourdes A.
was about to be lowered into the vault, it was discovered that Pomperada to file the aforementioned petition. Nonetheless,
the dimensions of the vault did not correspond to the the Court of Appeals denied said motion. [Non-existent rile
measurements of the casket. As a result, the casket was lifted issue]
and placed under the heat of the sun for about one hour in
front of all the mourners while the vault was being prepared. ISSUE(S)
To make matters worse, the employees of petitioner
corporation measured the casket by using a spade. 1) [Non-existent rule issue]
W/N
Insulted by the events that transpired at the funeral, (a) a board resolution or a secretarys certificate is
respondent, through counsel, wrote to the management of unnecessary to show proof that the one signing the
petitioner corporation demanding an explanation for its petition or the verification and certification against
negligence, but the latter did not respond nor attempt to forum shopping has been duly authorized by
apologize to the former. petitioner company; and, NO
(b) where there are two or more petitioners, the one
Case before the MTCC was assailed and eventually signing the petition need not append his authority
withdrawn for lack of jurisdiction. to sign on behalf of the other petitioners. NO
Consequently, respondent filed a complaint for damages
against the corporation and its Park-in-Charge Art 2) [False certification issue]
Fuentebella, jointly and solidarily, before the MTC. W/N respondents failure to disclose that a similar
Petitioners file motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction case was earlier filed by her before the MTCC but
because the amount of damages claimed is more than was later withdrawn for lack of jurisdiction
P200,000 Respondent subsequently filed a motion to constituted false certification NO
withdraw the complaint, which was granted.
RULING
A similar complaint was filed with the RTC. Certification
was assailed by respondents saying that it is false as 1) Rule 7, Sec. 5 of ROC mandates that the petitioner or the
complaint is identical with that filed before the MTCC. principal party must execute the certification against
Respondent filed a similar complaint with the RTC of Negros forum shopping. The reason for this is that the principal
Occidental. Attached in the complaint was the Verification party has actual knowledge whether a petition has
and Certification against Forum Shopping required under previously been filed involving the same case or
Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court1. substantially the same issues. If, for any reason, the
principal party cannot sign the petition, the one signing
Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the on his behalf must have been duly authorized.
certification is false because respondent had previously filed
This requirement is intended to apply to both natural
and juridical persons as Supreme Court Circular No. 28-
DISPOSITIVE PORTION
DISMISSED.