Atty. Julius Gregory Delgado
TORRES, ET AL. VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL., G.R. NO. 247490 (02 MARCH 2022): CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING EXECUTED BY LAWYER WITH SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY VALID IN JUSTIFIABLE CIRCUMSTANCES
On April 5, 1991, the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, filed before the Regional Trial Court of Davao City, a Complaint for the cancellation of Titles against spouses Leonora R. Gaspar and Florencio Gaspar (“spouses Gaspar”) and the Register of Deeds of Davao City praying for the cancellation of the free patents and original certificates of titles (OCTs) issued pursuant thereto and for the reversion of these lots in the name of the Republic.
After trial on the merits, on April 20, 1999, the trial court issued a decision in favor of the Republic cancelling the Titles of spouses Gaspar because the issuance of the OCTs is tainted of fraud and misrepresentation. In a Decision dated January 5, 2011, the Supreme Court denied the Petition for Review on Certiorari and a subsequent motion for reconsideration. An Entry of Judgment dated August 23, 2012 was issued by the Court.
On execution, the Republic filed before the trial court a Manifestation and Motion dated April 7, 2014 moving for the cancellation of the derivative titles which was granted by the trial court. Among the derivative titles cancelled are Transfer Certificates of Titles Nos. T-304045, T-304046, T-304047, T-304048 and T-304050 owned by petitioners Ma. Luisa A. Torres, Rodolfo A. Torres, Jr. and Richard Torres (“petitioners Torres”). Petitioners Torres filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court before the Court of Appeals arguing that they were not parties of the proceedings before the trial court and that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over them as they are living and working abroad, i.e., Ma. Luisa is in Ontario, Canada while Rodolfo and Richard are in Florida, U.S.A.
The Supreme Court addressed first the issue on procedure considering that the Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping in the Petition for Review on Certiorari was executed by the counsel of petitioners Torres. The Court held that the petitioners substantially complied when the petitioner’s counsel stated the following in the Verification and Certification, to wit:
That I am the legal counsel of the petitioners and I am also an attorney-in-fact of the petitioners; petitioner Ma. Luisa Annabelle A. Torres is presently working and residing in Ontario, Canada, while petitioners Rodolfo A. Torres, Jr. and Richard A. Torres are working and residing in Florida, USA; and as petitioners’ attorney-in-fact, I am fully armed with Special Powers of Attorney executed by the petitioners, original copies of which are attached hereto and respectively marked as Annexes “K,” “L,”, and “M” to form part hereof. x x x
That after conferring with the petitioners via long distance regarding the aforesaid questioned Resolutions of the Court of Appeals, we caused the preparation of the foregoing petition;
That I have read and understood the allegations contained in the foregoing petition and that the same are true and correct of my own knowledge or based on authentic records.
The Court held that similar to the rules on verification, the rules on forum shopping are designed to promote and facilitate orderly of administration of justice; hence, it should not be interpreted with subject absolute literalness as to subvert its own ultimate and legitimate objectives. The requirement of strict compliance with the provisions on certification against forum shopping merely underscores its mandatory nature to the effect that the certification cannot altogether be dispensed with or its requirement completely disregarded. On the merits, the Court cited the ruling in Republic vs. His Pin Liu, et al., G.R. No. 231100 dated January 15, 202 wherein it affirmed also the ruling of the Court of Appeals denying the Petition for Annulment of Judgment filed by those other holders of derivative titles of the free patent titles of Spouses Gaspar. Using the doctrine of stare decisis et non quieta movere, the Court held that once the case has been decided one way, any other case involving exactly the same point at issue, as in the present case, should be decided in the same manner.