AMENDED VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION

I, ARSENIA CORONEL, being duly sworn in accordance with law do hereby declare and depose:

1. That I am the plaintiff in Civil Case No. 8022 filed before Branch 57 of the Regional Trial Court of Angeles City;

2. That I caused the foregoing complaint to be prepared and have read and understood the allegations thereof;

3. That said allegations are true and correct of my own personal knowledge;

4. That I have not commenced any other complaint/petition involving the same issues similar to the instant complaint;

5. That to the best of my knowledge or belief, there is no other complaint/petition filed involving the same issues at bar;

6. That there is, however, a Petition for Issuance of Writ of Possession filed against me by the defendants herein docketed as Cad. Case No. A-124-694 before Branch 60 of the Regional Trial Court, Angeles City;

7. That I execute this affidavit to attest to the truth of the foregoing.

FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NONE.

(SGD. ARSENIA CORONEL)

A reading of the complaint shows that the plaintiff, in order to exercise her right of redemption, seeks to prevent the defendants and the Register of Deeds of Angeles City from doing something. Paragraph 14 of the complaint reads as follows:

It only avers that she has a right to redeem the property and that she is entitled to the reliefs prayed for, such as the issuance of a permanent injunction. Furthermore, the complaint states a sufficient cause of action which is set out in its paragraph 4 to 6, inclusive, that is, the right to redeem the property and to prevent the defendant-spouses Apolinario Melo and Lilia T. Melo and defendant Julio Barreto to consolidate their ownership over the property.

On Forum Shopping:

In the case at bar, there is no forum shopping. There is forum shopping whenever, as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion (other than by appeal or certiorari) in another, and the principle applies not only with respect to suits filed in the courts while an administrative proceeding is pending, in order to defeat administrative processes and in anticipation of an unfavorable administrative ruling and a favorable court ruling.

The petition for the issuance of a writ of possession and the present case, as heretofore stated, are oceans apart, so to speak. Thus, even if a writ of possession is issued, this will not prevent the plaintiff from exercising her right to redeem the property, if warranted. And it may be added that an indemnity bond is required to be posted in order that possession may then be obtained under a writ which may be applied for ex-parte, pursuant to Section 7 of Act 3135 as amended by Act 116.

Plaintiff, in compliance with Circular No. 28-91 and Section 17 of the Interim Rules and Guidelines, submitted an Amended Verification/Certification.

What happened in this case was totally different since the ex-parte petition for the issuance of a writ of possession was filed by the petitioners against private respondent. On the other hand, the complaint with preliminary injunction was filed by the private respondent against herein petitioners. It is not a case, therefore, of the private respondent instituting two (2) remedies in two (2) different fora. Her case entailed only one (1) forum, to be precise, with the RTC, Branch 57.

The plaintiff, petitioner, applicant or principal party seeking relief in the complaint, petition, application or other initiatory pleadings shall certify under oath in such original pleadings, or in a sworn certification annexed thereto and simultaneously filed therewith, to the truth of the following facts and undertakings: (a) he has not heretofore commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency; (b) to the best of his knowledge, no such action or proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency; (c) if there is any such action or proceeding which is either pending or may have been terminated, he must state the status thereof; and, (d) if he should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or any other tribunal or agency, he undertakes to report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court or agency wherein the original pleading and sworn certification contemplated herein have been filed.

Any violation of this Circular shall be cause for the dismissal of the complaint, petition, application or other initiatory pleading, upon motion and after hearing. However, any clearly willful and deliberate forum shopping by any party and his counsel through the filing of multiple complaints or other initiatory pleadings to obtain favorable action shall be a ground for summary dismissal thereof and shall constitute direct contempt of court. Furthermore, the submission of a false certification or non-compliance with the undertakings therein, as provided in Paragraph 1 hereof, shall constitute indirect contempt of court, without prejudice to disciplinary proceedings against the counsel and the filing of a criminal action against the guilty party.

l. This section, with modifications, is taken from Administrative Circular No. 04-94 issued by the Supreme Court on February 8, 1994 for this purpose explained therein:

The provisions of Revised Circular No. 28-91 have been adopted and incorporated in Rules 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 64 and 65.

2. Aside from some amendments to the original sanctions imposed in Administrative Circular 04-94, this section reiterates as a regular requirement under the Rules that the certification against forum shopping may be incorporated in the complaint or contained in a sworn certification annexed thereto and simultaneously filed therewith. This enunciates the policy of the Supreme Court expressed as early as Circular No. 1-88 that subsequent compliance with the requirements for the filing of petitions or motions is not a ground for reconsideration of the dismissal of said pleadings, except for compelling reasons. In light hereof, the view that belated filing of the certification may be deemed a substantial compliance should no longer be sustained.

With respect to the contents of the certification which the pleader may prepare, the rule of substantial compliance may be availed of. While this section requires that it be strictly complied with, it merely underscores its mandatory nature in that it cannot be altogether dispensed with or its requirements completely disregarded but it does not thereby prevent substantial compliance on this aspect of its provisions under justifiable circumstances (see Gabionza vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 112547, July 18, 1994). This certification on non-forum shopping was designed to promote and facilitate the orderly administration of justice and, therefore, should not be interpreted with absolute literalness (Loyola vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 117186, June 29, 1995).

More importantly, this section specifically states that the "(f)ailure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be curable by mere amendment of the complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon motion and after hearing." This will obviate the former practice of some trial courts in allowing amendment of the incomplete pleading for the incorporation therein of the certificate against forum shopping. That was erroneous since this undertaking against multiple filing of cases is not part of the operative facts required to be alleged in an initiatory pleading, such as allegations on the cause of action, but is a special requirement for admission of the initiatory pleading for filing in court, hence the absence thereof is not curable by mere amendment.

Instead, the case shall be dismissed on motion but, just like the practice under Revised Circular No. 28-91 in the appellate courts, such dismissal shall be without prejudice. This more liberal rule is distinguishable from the effects of dismissal of the case for non-compliance with the Rules under the provisions of Sec. 3, Rule 17 which presupposes the pendency of the case, whereas what is contemplated in this section is the initiation of the case. The case may consequently be refiled within the balance of the reglementary period but subject to the provisions on prescription of actions.