Atty. Julius Gregory Delgado
FERNANDO C. CLAVECILLA VS. MARIVIC C. CLAVECILLA, G.R. NO. 228127 (MARCH 6, 2023):
EXEMPTION TO THE GENERAL RULE THAT IT IS THE LITIGANT AND NOT THE LAWYER WHO SHOULD
EXECUTE AND SIGN CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING
Petitioner Fernando used to work as Finance Officer in Philippine Embassy and respondent
Marivic used to work as Staff Nurse in a hospital in Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. They became sweethearts and tied the knot at the Philippine Embassy on December 10, 1987. They again celebrated
their wedding vows in a ceremony at Paco Park sometime on March 12, 1988. They were blessed with one child, Patrick Joshua, who was born on September 21, 1993. On November 14, 2006, petitioner Fernando filed a Verified Petition for the declaration of nullity of his marriage with respondent Marivic. Petitioner Fernando alleged that respondent Marivic is incapable of performing her marital obligations, was carefree, constant nagger, and demanding wife. Petitioner Fernando alleged that respondent Marivic wanted to be with friends rather than taking care of her family at home. Petitioner Fernando also alleged that respondent Marivic refused to find another employment. Marivic opposed the Petition by filing an Answer.
The trial court granted the Petition and declared and null and void the marriage of petitioner
Fernando and respondent Marivic. Upon the denial of her motion seeking for the reconsideration of the ruling, respondent Marivic filed a Notice of Appeal. The Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the trial court’s ruling and ruled that the marriage between petitioner Fernando and respondent Marivic remains
valid and subsisting. Petitioner Fernando filed a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. For her part, respondent Marivic makes issue of petitioner Fernando’s failure to personally execute the verificationmn and certification non-forum shopping attached petition. For his part, petitioner Fernando, however,
counters that through a Special Power of Attorney, he authorized Atty. Clavecilla to sign the Verification
and Certification on his behalf.
The Supreme Court denied the Petition for Review under Rule 45 of petitioner Fernando. While
Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the applicable rule at the time petitioner
Fernando filed the instant Petition, which requires plaintiff or the principal party to execute the
Certification Against Forum Shopping, the Supreme Court, citing Heirs of Gabriel vs. Cebrero, 843 Phil.
53 (2018), held that the courts may exercise discretion by ordering its submission or correction, or evenm act on the petition itself in order to serve the ends of justice. The Court held that it may exercise discretion because a Verification is merely a formal, and not a jurisdictional, requisite, and noncompliance does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective.
The Supreme Court ruled that the Attorney-in-Fact and counsel, Atty. Marvel C. Clavecilla,
appeared to be clothed with sufficient authority to file the Verified Petition on petitioner’s behalf. The Special Power of Attorney of petitioner Fernando executed had expressly granted by Atty. Clavecilla the authority “to initiate the filing of a petition for review/appeal to the Supreme Court; initiate the filing of a petition for review/appeal to the Supreme Court” and “to sign any and all pleadings” in connection with the Petition. Hence, the Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping on behalf of
petitioner Fernando signed by Atty. Marvel Clavecilla is not defective as would cause the dismissal of the relevant case/s.