TL;DR

The Supreme Court affirmed that a verification in a pleading must state that the allegations are true and correct based on the affiant’s “personal knowledge” or “authentic records,” as required by the amended Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Failure to comply renders the pleading as unsigned and without legal effect, subject to the court’s discretion to allow rectification. This case emphasizes the importance of adhering to procedural rules, particularly in verifying pleadings, and clarifies the distinction between excusable and inexcusable non-compliance, thereby upholding the integrity of legal processes.

‘Sauce for the Goose’: Upholding Procedural Rules and Fair Play in Docket Fee Disputes

This case, Negros Oriental Planters Association, Inc. (NOPA) v. Hon. Presiding Judge of RTC-Negros Occidental and Aniceto Manojo Campos, revolves around a breach of contract dispute and the crucial matter of proper verification of pleadings and payment of correct docket fees. At its heart, the case questions whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing NOPA’s Petition for Certiorari due to defects in its verification and failure to attach necessary documents. The dispute originated from a Molasses Sales Agreement between Campos and NOPA, where a disagreement arose regarding the quality of delivered molasses, leading to Campos filing a complaint for breach of contract with damages.

NOPA later filed a Motion to Dismiss, alleging Campos failed to pay the correct filing fee by deliberately underestimating the actual damages in his complaint. The RTC denied this motion, prompting NOPA to file a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which was subsequently dismissed due to deficiencies in the verification, missing documents, and failure to indicate the counsel’s current IBP Official Receipt Number. The Supreme Court was asked to determine whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding no substantial compliance with procedural rules.

The Court addressed the issue of the verification requirement under Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended by A.M. No. 00-2-10-SC. Before the amendment, a pleading needed to be verified by an affidavit stating that the affiant had read the pleading and that the allegations were true and correct to the best of their knowledge and belief. However, the amended rule now requires the affidavit to state that the allegations are true and correct based on the affiant’s personal knowledge or authentic records. This amendment significantly raised the bar for verification, emphasizing the need for a more concrete basis for the affiant’s statements.

The Court noted that failure to properly verify a pleading results in it being treated as unsigned, giving the court discretion to allow the deficiency to be remedied. Unlike the non-curable failure to comply with the requirement for a Certification against Forum Shopping, an improperly verified pleading may be corrected at the court’s discretion. In this case, the Court of Appeals declined to exercise its discretion to allow NOPA to remedy the defective verification. The Supreme Court acknowledged that appellate courts rarely reverse a lower court’s exercise of discretion, doing so only in cases of grave abuse or when substantial rights of a litigant are adversely affected.

In this case, the Supreme Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Court of Appeals. The Court emphasized that the alleged deficiency in Campos’s payment of docket fees would not directly benefit NOPA, meaning no substantive right was prejudiced. The Court recognized the payment of docket fees as jurisdictional, but also acknowledged that it is a technicality, stating “What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.” NOPA, seeking leniency based on substantial justice, was simultaneously trying to prevent the breach of contract action from being decided on its merits.

Even if the Court were to overlook the technical lapses, NOPA’s Petition for Certiorari would still fail. NOPA relied on Manchester Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals, which held that a court acquires jurisdiction only upon payment of the prescribed docket fee. However, the RTC correctly cited Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. (SIOL) v. Asuncion, which modified the Manchester ruling. Sun Insurance allows for the payment of the fee within a reasonable period, provided there is no deliberate intent to defraud the court. NOPA argued that Campos deliberately concealed his claim for damages, making Sun Insurance inapplicable.

The Supreme Court, citing United Overseas Bank (formerly Westmont Bank) v. Ros, clarified that Manchester is not applicable when there is no deliberate intent to defraud the court. In this case, Campos paid a substantial amount as a docket fee and demonstrated a willingness to abide by the rules by paying additional fees if required. The Court determined that the alleged omission of a portion of the damages claimed was minimal and did not indicate a deliberate intent to defraud the court. Therefore, the principles of Sun Insurance applied, justifying the denial of NOPA’s Motion to Dismiss.

FAQs

The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of adhering to procedural rules, particularly the requirements for verification of pleadings. It clarifies that while courts have discretion to allow deficiencies to be remedied, this discretion will not be overturned absent grave abuse or prejudice to substantive rights. Moreover, the ruling reinforces the principle that parties must comply with technical rules and cannot expect leniency while simultaneously demanding strict compliance from their opponents.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact Atty. Gabriel Ablola through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Negros Oriental Planters Association, Inc. (NOPA) vs. Hon. Presiding Judge of RTC-Negros Occidental, G.R. No. 179878, December 24, 2008