CIVIL PROCEDURE Verification and Certification MEDADO VS. HEIRS OF ANTONIO CONSUING

 MEDADO VS. HEIRS OF ANTONIO CONSUING

FACTS: (Spouses Medado) and Estate of Consing executed Deeds of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage of the property identified as Hacienda.

As part of the deal, Spouses Medado undertook to assume the estate's loan with (PNB). Subsequent to the sale, however, the Estate of Consing offered the subject lots to the government. Estate of Consing also instituted with the RTC, an action for rescission and damages against Spouses Medado due to the alleged failure of the spouses to meet the conditions in their agreement.

In the meantime while the case for rescission was pending, Land Bank issued in favor of the Estate of Consing a certificate of deposit of cash as compensation for the lots. Spouses Medado feared that LBP would release the full proceeds thereof to the Estate of Consing, they institute an action for injunction to restrain LBP from releasing the remaining amount of the proceeds of the lots to Estate of Consing, and restraining the Estate of Consing from receiving these proceeds

RTC granter the injunction (Medado) and the Writ of Preliminary Injunction was issued. The writ was implemented 1 day before the hearing for the motion for reconsideration filed by Heirs of Consing. Feeling aggrieved, the heirs of the late Antonio Consing (Consing) questioned the RTC's order via a petition for certiorari filed with the CA. They sought, among other reliefs, the dismissal of the complaint for injunction for violation of the rules on litis pendentia and forum shopping.

On the matter of the absence of a motion for reconsideration of the trial court's order before resorting to a petition for certiorari, the heirs explained that the implementation of the questioned writs rendered their motion for reconsideration moot and academic. The heirs argued that their case was within the exceptions to the general rule that a petition under Rule 65 will not lie unless a motion for reconsideration is first filed.

CA NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE the ruling of RTC.

The CA ruled that the RTC gravely abused its discretion in taking cognizance of Civil Case for injunction during the pendency of Civil Case for rescission and damages as this violates the rule against forum shopping.

ISSUES: Whether or not the requirement for verification and certification against forum shopping complied with by the heris of consing when the same is solely signed by Soledad- administratix?

RULING: The requirements for verification and certification against forum shopping in the CA petition were substantially complied with, following settled jurisprudence. Where the petitioners are immediate relatives, who share a common interest in the property subject of the action, the fact that only one of the petitioners executed the verification or certification of forum shopping will not deter the court from proceeding with the action.

The Court has consistently held that verification of a pleading is a formal, not a jurisdictional, requirement intended to secure the assurance that the matters alleged in a pleading are true and correct. Thus, the court may simply order the correction of unverified pleadings or act on them and waive strict compliance with the rules. It is deemed substantially complied with when one who has ample knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations in the complaint or petition signs the verification; and when matters alleged in the petition have been made in good faith or are true and correct. It was based on this principle that this Court had also allowed herein petitioner, via our Resolution dated April 22, 2009, a chance to submit a verification that complied with Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, as amended, instead of the Court dismissing the petition outright.