G.R. No. 150865 - Fuentebella vs. Castro

The respondent, Darlica Castro, is the widow of Freddie Castro, who died on September 18, 1997, in Bacolod City, Negros Occidental.
During the interment of her husband’s remains on September 27, 1997, at Rolling Hills Memorial Park, Inc., a discrepancy was noted when the vault dimensions failed to properly accommodate the casket.
In the midst of the burial, it was revealed that the employees of the petitioner measured the casket using a spade, and the casket was subjected to undue exposure by being placed under the heat of the sun while the vault was being readied.
Outraged by the embarrassing events, the respondent, through counsel, sought an explanation from the management of the petitioner corporation, but received no reply or apology.

On March 16, 1998, Darlica Castro filed a complaint for damages before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Bacolod City.

The damages claimed included moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and litigation costs.
Petitioners moved to dismiss the case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction due to the claim exceeding P200,000.

Subsequently, the respondent withdrew the complaint, and the MTCC granted the withdrawal on June 24, 1998.
On April 15, 1999, the respondent pursued a similar complaint with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Negros Occidental, attaching a Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping as required by Rule 7, Section 5 of the Rules of Court.

Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss on the basis that the certification was false, arguing that the respondent had previously filed an identical complaint with the MTCC.
On January 3, 2000, the trial court denied the motion to dismiss, holding that while the certificate of non-forum shopping is mandatory, it must not be interpreted too literally such that it defeats the essential aim of preventing forum shopping.
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, contending that the dismissal was based on the submission of a false certification rather than on the mere filing of parallel actions; this motion was likewise denied on July 9, 2001, with the court clarifying that a false certificate is treated as an indirect contempt of court, subject to administrative and criminal sanctions.

Petitioners elevated the case to the Court of Appeals seeking certiorari with a preliminary injunction and/or restraining order against the trial court’s ruling.
The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on September 27, 2001, holding that the verification and certification against forum shopping was improperly executed.

The certification was signed by Lourdes Pomperada without any indication that she was duly authorized by petitioners to sign on their behalf.

A motion for reconsideration was subsequently filed by petitioner Rolling Hills Memorial Park, Inc., accompanied by a Secretary’s Certificate affirming Pomperada’s authority.
The Court of Appeals, however, reaffirmed its dismissal on November 20, 2001, noting that although evidence was presented showing Pomperada’s authorization for one petitioner, there was no demonstration that she was similarly authorized on behalf of the co-petitioner.

Whether the dismissal of the petition for certiorari by the Court of Appeals was proper on the ground that the verification and certification against forum shopping was signed by an individual who lacked proper authority to represent all petitioners.

The issue centered on the requirement under Rule 7, Section 5 of the Rules of Court that mandates the petitioner or the authorized representative must have actual knowledge of previous similar actions filed and must personally sign the certification.
The Court had to determine if a board resolution or secretary’s certificate is necessary to validate the authority of the signatory, especially when multiple petitioners are involved.

Whether the Regional Trial Court committed grave abuse of discretion by not dismissing the complaint on the ground of the alleged submission of a false certification, considering that the respondent failed to disclose the earlier filing with the MTCC.

Petitioners argued that the RTC’s denial of a motion to dismiss amounted to a grave abuse of discretion since the false certification should have warranted dismissal.
The issue further included whether the omission within the certificate, relating to a previously filed but withdrawn complaint, could be equated to willful forum shopping that would justify dismissal.