Mr & Mrs Ronnie Dar, Mr &Mrs Randy Angeles, Mr & Mrs.

Joy COnstantino and Mr &Mrs Liberty Cruz vs.

Hon. Legasto of the MTC and Nenita Co (private respondent)
2000-08-30 | G.R. No. 143016
TOPIC: Joint Administration
PONENTE: KAPUNAN, J
NATURE: Review on certiorari and mandamus
FACTS:
1. Respondent Nenita Co filed a case for unlawful detainer against the petitioners in the MTC. The
petitioners were sued as Mr and Mrs. The trial court decided adversely to the petitioners.
2. The Court of Appeals issued a resolution on January 25, 2000 dismissing the petitioners petition
for review and certiorari for failure to comply with the Rule on Certification of Non- Forum
Shopping. The petitioners Ronnie, Randy, Joy, and Liberty signed the Certification of Non- Forum
Shopping while their spouses did not. Thus, this case.
3. The petitioners contend that since what is involved in the instant case is their common rights and
interest to abode under the system of absolute community of property, either of the spouses can
sign the petition.
4. CA RULING: Dismissed. Because only the husband, Ronnie Dar, signed the petition.
ISSUE: WON the petition is dismissible because only one the husband signed the pettion?
HELD: NO
With respect to the contents of the certification, the rule of substantial compliance may be availed
of. In the instant case, the Court of Appeals should have taken into consideration the fact that the
petitioners were sued jointly, as Mr and Mrs, over a property in which they have common interest. Such
being the case, the signing of one of them in the certification substantially complies with the rule on
certification of non- forum shopping.
DOCTRINE:
1. While the said rule requires that it be strictly complied with, it merely underscores the mandatory
nature that the certification or the requirement cannot altogether be dispensed with. It does not
prevent the substantial compliance therewith under justifiable circumstances.
2. Circular no. 28-91 was designed to serve as an instrument to promote and facilitate the orderly
administration of justice and should not be interpreted with such absolute literalness as to subvert
the ultimate objective of all rules and procedure- which it to achieve substantial justice.