Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping

Republic of the Philippines
[Name of Court]
[Judicial Region]
[Branch]
[City/Municipality]

[Name of Plaintiff/Petitioner],
        Plaintiff/Petitioner,

        - versus -                                      Civil Case No. [case number]
                                                         For: [nature of action]

[Name of Defendant/Respondent],
        Defendant/Respondent.
x------------------------------------------------x

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING

I, [Name of Affiant], of legal age, [civil status], Filipino, and residing at [address], after having been duly sworn in accordance with law, state:

1. I am the [plaintiff/petitioner/principal party/authorized representative of the plaintiff or petitioner] in the above-entitled case.

2. If this Verification and Certification is signed by a representative, my authority to sign and act for [name of party represented] is shown by the [Special Power of Attorney/Secretary's Certificate/Board Resolution/other written authority] attached to the initiatory pleading as Annex [annex mark].

3. I caused the preparation of, and have read, the [Complaint/Petition/Initiatory Pleading] dated [date]. The allegations therein are true and correct based on my personal knowledge or based on authentic documents.

4. The [Complaint/Petition/Initiatory Pleading] is not filed to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation.

5. The factual allegations in the [Complaint/Petition/Initiatory Pleading] have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for discovery.

6. I have not commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial agency. To the best of my knowledge, no such action or claim is pending therein.

7. If there is any action or claim involving the same issues that has been filed or is pending, its complete present status is as follows: [state the court, tribunal, or agency; case title; docket number; parties; issues; and present status, or state "Not applicable" if there is none].

8. If I later learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending before any court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial agency, I undertake to report that fact within five (5) calendar days from knowledge thereof to this Honorable Court, where the [Complaint/Petition/Initiatory Pleading] has been filed.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping on [date] at [city/municipality], Philippines.


[Signature of Affiant]
[Name of Affiant]
Affiant

Competent evidence of identity:
[ID type and number]
[Date/place of issue or validity period]


JURAT

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this [day] day of [month], [year], in [city/municipality], Philippines, by [Name of Affiant], who personally appeared before me, was identified by competent evidence of identity stated above, signed this instrument in my presence, and affirmed under oath that the statements in this Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping are true and correct.


[Signature of Notary Public]
[Name of Notary Public]
Notary Public for [place]
Notarial Commission No. [commission number]
Commission valid until [date]
Roll of Attorneys No. [roll number]
PTR No. [PTR number], [date], [place]
IBP No. [IBP number], [date], [place]
MCLE Compliance No. [MCLE number]

Doc. No. [document number];
Page No. [page number];
Book No. [book number];
Series of [year].

Nature and Function

Verification and certification against forum shopping are sworn components of litigation papers, but they serve different procedural purposes. Verification concerns the truthfulness and good faith of the allegations in the pleading. The certification against forum shopping concerns the party's disclosure of existing, prior, or later-filed actions involving the same or similar issues.

They are commonly placed in one combined affidavit after the pleading, but they remain distinct requirements. A pleading may have a sufficient verification but an insufficient certification, or the reverse. Each requirement must therefore be checked by its own purpose, contents, signatory, and legal consequence.

Verification

The general rule is that pleadings need not be verified. Verification is required only when a statute, rule, or special procedural remedy makes it necessary. Examples include many special civil actions and petitions where the court relies on sworn allegations at the outset.

A proper verification states that the affiant has read the pleading and that the allegations are true and correct based on personal knowledge or authentic documents. The reference to authentic documents allows verification of matters drawn from records, contracts, official papers, or other reliable documents, not merely from rumor, assumption, or secondhand belief.

A verification based only on information and belief, or on knowledge, information, and belief, is insufficient when the rule requires a verified pleading. The oath must connect the affiant to facts personally known or to documents whose authenticity supports the allegations.

Verification is intended to secure responsibility for factual allegations. It discourages speculative, sham, or reckless pleading and permits the court to treat the factual allegations as made under oath. It does not, by itself, prove the allegations or dispense with evidence at trial.

Effect of Defective Verification

A pleading required to be verified but containing an improper verification is treated as an unsigned pleading. An unsigned pleading generally produces no legal effect, although courts may allow correction when the omission or defect is due to inadvertence and is not intended for delay.

Defective verification is usually a formal defect rather than a jurisdictional defect. Courts may allow substantial compliance or later correction when the ends of justice require it, especially where the facts are otherwise supported by the record and there is no showing of intent to mislead the court.

The more specific and indispensable the required oath is to the remedy, the less room there is for liberality. A petition that relies on sworn factual allegations for immediate relief may be dismissed if the verification is absent, false, or so defective that the court cannot treat the allegations as responsibly sworn.

Certification Against Forum Shopping

The certification against forum shopping is a sworn statement by the plaintiff or principal party in the complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief. It may be included in the pleading itself or attached as a sworn certification filed simultaneously with it.

The certification contains three essential undertakings. First, the party declares that no action or claim involving the same issues has been commenced or filed in any court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial agency, and that, to the best of the party's knowledge, no such action or claim is pending. Second, if such an action or claim exists, the party must give a complete statement of its present status. Third, if the party later learns that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, the party must report that fact to the court within five calendar days from knowledge.

The duty is one of disclosure, not merely avoidance of identical captions. The party must reveal related proceedings involving the same or similar issues even when the other case uses a different title, remedy, theory, docket, forum, or procedural vehicle.

Forum Shopping

Forum shopping is the act of repetitively availing of several judicial or quasi-judicial remedies in different fora, either simultaneously or successively, based on the same transactions or essential facts, in the hope of obtaining a favorable ruling. It also exists when a party files multiple cases to increase the chances of a favorable judgment or to obtain relief already sought elsewhere.

The practical test is whether the elements of litis pendentia are present or whether a final judgment in one case would amount to res judicata in another. There is forum shopping when there is identity of parties or substantial identity of interests, identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, and identity of the essential facts and issues such that one case substantially duplicates another.

Exact identity of parties is not indispensable. Substantial identity exists when the parties represent the same interests, act for the same principal, claim under the same right, or seek the same practical relief. A party cannot avoid the rule by adding nominal parties, omitting indispensable context, changing the order of names, or recasting the same controversy as a different remedy.

Forum shopping is closely related to the rule against splitting a cause of action. When one set of facts gives rise to one primary right and one corresponding wrong, the party should not divide the controversy into several suits to obtain several opportunities for relief.

Pleadings Covered

The certification is required in a complaint and in any initiatory pleading that asserts a claim for relief. It is therefore expected in petitions that commence original actions, special civil actions, and other proceedings where the filer asks the court to grant affirmative relief against another party or governmental act.

It is not ordinarily required in a purely defensive pleading, such as an answer, because the defendant is not commencing an independent action by merely resisting the claim. A compulsory counterclaim is generally treated as part of the defensive response, while a permissive counterclaim, third-party complaint, or similar pleading that introduces an independent claim should be treated with the caution applicable to initiatory claims.

A motion does not usually require a certification merely because it seeks relief within an existing case. However, a pleading denominated as a motion may require the certification if, in substance, it initiates a separate claim or proceeding.

Who Must Sign

The certification against forum shopping must be signed by the plaintiff or principal party because it contains personal representations about other proceedings and a personal undertaking to report later-discovered related cases. Counsel's signature on the pleading does not ordinarily substitute for the party's sworn certification.

When there are several plaintiffs or petitioners, all should sign the certification because each party makes the representation and undertaking. Substantial compliance may be recognized when one party signs for co-parties who share a common interest, assert the same claim, and are adequately represented, but this liberality depends on the circumstances and should not be assumed as a drafting practice.

A juridical entity signs through an authorized representative. The authority should be shown by a board resolution, secretary's certificate, special power of attorney, or other competent proof, depending on the entity involved. The representative must be able to swear to the matters stated, either from personal knowledge or from authentic corporate or institutional records.

For public offices and government entities, the certification should be executed by the officer authorized by law, regulation, internal authority, or official designation to represent the agency in the proceeding. The document should make clear the signatory's position and authority so the court can determine that the undertaking binds the real party.

Form and Drafting Requirements

The verification and certification may be combined in one affidavit, but the combined document must contain all material statements required for both. A bare statement that the pleading is true and correct does not satisfy the forum-shopping certification. A bare statement that no other case is pending does not satisfy verification.

The affidavit should identify the affiant, the pleading being verified, the capacity in which the affiant signs, and the source of the affiant's knowledge. If the affiant signs for a corporation, partnership, association, estate, or government office, the authority to sign should be alleged and, when appropriate, attached or referenced.

The certification must expressly cover courts, tribunals, and quasi-judicial agencies. It must cover both actions already commenced by the party and actions known to be pending. If another proceeding exists, the certification should state the forum, case title, docket information if available, nature of the case, issues or reliefs involved, and present status.

The undertaking to report later-discovered related cases is a continuing obligation. The party cannot remain silent after learning of another case merely because the certification was accurate on the filing date. The report must be filed within five calendar days from knowledge.

Because the statements are sworn, the proper notarial act is a jurat: the affiant personally appears, is identified, signs or confirms the affidavit, and swears to the truth of its contents. A defective notarization may leave the verification or certification without the required oath.

Defects, Dismissal, and Sanctions

Failure to comply with the certification requirement is not curable by mere amendment of the complaint or initiatory pleading. The default consequence is dismissal without prejudice, upon motion and after hearing, unless a rule or the circumstances call for a different consequence.

The phrase not curable by mere amendment means the party cannot demand correction as a matter of right simply by filing an amended pleading. Courts may still apply substantial compliance in exceptional cases, but liberality rests on equitable considerations such as absence of intent to deceive, prompt correction, commonality of interest among parties, and the demands of substantial justice.

A false certification or failure to comply with the undertaking to report a related case may constitute indirect contempt, without prejudice to criminal, administrative, or disciplinary liability. The falsehood is serious because it obstructs the court's ability to detect duplicative litigation.

Willful and deliberate forum shopping is more serious than a defective certificate. It is a ground for summary dismissal with prejudice, direct contempt, and administrative sanctions. Dismissal with prejudice is proper when the record shows deliberate resort to multiple fora to obtain the same relief, conceal related proceedings, or manipulate judicial processes.

Practical Relationship to Lawyer Responsibility

Although the party signs the certification, counsel remains responsible for ensuring that the pleading is not used to mislead the court. Counsel should inquire into prior, pending, and related proceedings before filing and should not rely on artful changes in caption, parties, or remedy to conceal substantially identical litigation.

The lawyer's signature on the pleading separately certifies that the filing is not intended to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase litigation cost, and that the claims and factual contentions have legal and evidentiary basis. A defective or false forum-shopping certification may therefore create both procedural consequences for the case and professional responsibility consequences for the lawyer.

In practice, the safest drafting method is to treat the verification as the affiant's oath on the factual allegations and the certification as the party's full disclosure of related proceedings. The court should be able to determine from the document who swears, in what capacity, on what basis, with what authority, and with what undertaking to the court.