Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 105
QUEZON CITY

Dra. Vicki Belo

Plaintiff, CIVIL CASE NO. 12345
FOR: MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
WITH DAMAGES
-versus-

Gretchen Barretto
Accused.

X-----------------------------------------------------x

MOTION TO ADMIT COMPLAINT WITH VERIFICATION OF NON-

FORUM SHOPPING

PLAINTIFF, by undersigned counsel, unto the Honorable Court, most

respectfully state:
1. On 28th of September 2019, Plaintiff filed a Complaint for Malicious
prosecution with damages docketed as Civil Case No. 12345, entitled
“Dra. Vicki Belo vs. Gretchen Barretto”, which was assigned to this
Honorable Court;
2. When the plaintiff received the defendant’s answer on 12 th of
November 2019, it was indicated that our clients’ complaint was not
accompanied by a verification and certification, and we admitted it on
our reply attached to as Annex “D”;
3. Unfortunately, Plaintiff failed to comply with the formalities required by
the Rules of Court and the A.M. No. 11-9-4-SC or Efficient Use of
Paper Rule due to the inadvertence of the undersigned counsels, the
plaintiff failed to attach in the Complaint the required Verification and
Certification of Non-Forum Shopping;
4. Plaintiff and counsels respectfully manifest that they do not have the
slightest intention of delaying the proceedings or disregarding any rule
and its failure to comply with the formalities required by the Rules of
Court and the A.M No. 11-9-4-SC or Efficient Use of Paper Rule was
due to the aforestated reason;

Page 1 of 5
5. Notably, in the case of Roadway Express, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals,
the Supreme Court considered as substantial compliance the filing of
the certification before the dismissal of the petition, to wit:

“The records show that 14 days before the CA

dismissed the petition for review, an ex-parte
manifestation containing the requirement of the
certification of non-forum shopping was already filed.
Thus, the CA had no basis in ruling that there was no
certification, although the same was in the form of a
manifestation. If subsequent compliance with Circular
28-91, after a petition was dismissed for non-
compliance was considered by the court as substantial
compliance with the said Circular, with more reason
should the petition for review be allowed in this case, in
view of the compliance prior to the dismissal of the
petition. ”

6. Furthermore, in the case of Uy vs. The Land Bank of the

Philippines, the Supreme Court even reinstated a petition it had
already dismissed for lack of verification and certification against forum
shopping, after petitioner had justified the reinstatement, to wit:

“The admission of the petition after the belated filing of

the certification, therefore, is not unprecedented. In
those cases where the Court excused non-compliance
with the requirements, there were special
circumstances or compelling reasons making the strict
application of the rule clearly unjustified. In the case at
bar, the apparent merits of the substantive aspects of
the case should be deemed as a special circumstance
or compelling reason for the reinstatement of the
petition. That counsel for petitioner filed the
verification/certification before receipt for the resolution
initially denying the petition also mitigates the
oversight.”

7. Thus, to correct the aforementioned mistake and inadvertence, the

Plaintiffs intend to submit the Amended Complaint, which now includes
the Verification and Certification Against Non- Forum Shopping,
attached as Annex “E”;

Page 2 of 5
8. It is worthy to note that by allowing the admission of the Amended
Complaint with Verification and Certification Against Non- Forum
Shopping, no unfairness to any of the Defendants would result. To this
date, the attachment is merely to conform to procedural rules and is
not intended to prejudice the Defendants;

9. As the Supreme Court has expounded in Aguam vs. Court of

Appeals:

Technicalities, however, must be avoided. The law

abhors technicalities that impede the cause of justice.
The court's primary duty is to render or dispense
justice. "A litigation is not a game of technicalities."
"Lawsuits unlike duels are not to be won by a rapier's
thrust. Technicality, when it deserts its proper office as
an aid to justice and becomes its great hindrance and
chief enemy, deserves scant consideration from courts."
Litigations must be decided on their merits and not on
technicality. Every party litigant must be afforded the
amplest opportunity for the proper and just
determination of his cause, free from the unacceptable
plea of technicalities. Thus, dismissal of appeals
purely on technical grounds is frowned upon where
the policy of the court is to encourage hearings of
appeals on their merits and the rules of procedure
ought not to be applied in a very rigid, technical
sense; rules of procedure are used only to help
secure, not override substantial justice. (Emphasis
supplied)

10. In Ginete v. Court of Appeals, the Court further held:

Let it be emphasized that the rules of procedure should

be viewed as mere tools designed to facilitate the
attainment of justice. Their strict and rigid application,
which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate
rather than promote substantial justice, must always be
eschewed. Even the Rules of Court reflect this principle.
The power to suspend or even disregard rules can be
so pervasive and compelling as to alter even that which
this Court itself has already declared to be final, as we
are now constrained to do in the instant case.

Page 3 of 5
 xxxx

The emerging trend in the rulings of this Court is to

afford every party litigant the amplest opportunity
for the proper and just determination of his cause,
free from the constraints of technicalities. Time and
again, this Court has consistently held that rules
must not be applied rigidly so as not to override
substantial justice. (Emphasis supplied)

11. Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully manifest that they do not have the
slightest intention of disregarding any rules of procedure, and their
failure to attach Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping
was due inadvertence and was not done deliberately and willfully;
12. Based on the foregoing, the Plaintiffs most respectfully request
this Honorable Court to admit the Amended Complaint with
Verification and Certification Against Non-Forum Shopping and to
serve the same to the Defendants.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that the attached Amended

Complaint with Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping be admitted
and served by this Honorable Court.

Quezon City, 15th day of November 2019.

ATTY. MARIA CHRISTINA F. CORPUZ

Counsel for the Plaintiff
Asiawealth Tower, Quezon City
Roll No. 123456
IBP. No. 87965 / 03-03-11/ Quezon City
MCLE Compliance No. 89648 /03-03-11
PTR No. 87659/ 9-9-1/ Quezon City

And

ATTY. MINESSA M. LIWANAG

Assistant Counsel for the Plaintiff
Asiawealth Tower, Quezon City
Roll No. 69009
IBP. No. 789085 / 12-29-12/ Quezon City
MCLE Compliance No. 890591 / 12-20-13
PTR no. 345668 / 01-05-12/ Quezon City

Page 4 of 5
Doc. No. 8909
Page No.5789
Book No. 0856
Series of 2019.

COPY FURNISHED:

Atty. Marlon Caisip

Suite 3601, 36th floor The Antel Global Center
No. 3 Julia Vargas Ave., Ortigas Center,
1605, Pasig City, Metro Manila

ATTY. RACHEL ANNN CATALAN

CLERK OF COURT
Regional Trial Court
Branch 105

EXPLANATION AS TO MODE OF SERVICE

Pursuant to Sec. 11, Rule 13, Rules of Court, service of this pleading to adverse
party by registered mail was resorted to because personal service is not practical
due to lack of manpower and distance.

Atty. Maria Christina F. Corpuz

Received by:___________
Date: ___________

Page 5 of 5