Scribd
Upload
201 views

Vda Formoso Vs PNB

This case discusses a dispute between Nellie Vda. De Formoso and her children (the Formosos) and Philippine National Bank (PNB) regarding a loan obligation. The Formosos had executed a power of attorney allowing their agent, Malcaba, to pay off the loan. When Malcaba tendered payment to PNB, PNB refused to accept it. The Formosos filed a complaint to force PNB to accept payment. The court ruled in their favor but denied additional damages. The Formosos appealed but the Court of Appeals denied the petition because only Malcaba, not all the petitioners, had signed the verification and certification of non-forum shopping. The Supreme Court upheld

Uploaded by

Gen Grajo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
201 views

Vda Formoso Vs PNB

This case discusses a dispute between Nellie Vda. De Formoso and her children (the Formosos) and Philippine National Bank (PNB) regarding a loan obligation. The Formosos had executed a power of attorney allowing their agent, Malcaba, to pay off the loan. When Malcaba tendered payment to PNB, PNB refused to accept it. The Formosos filed a complaint to force PNB to accept payment. The court ruled in their favor but denied additional damages. The Formosos appealed but the Court of Appeals denied the petition because only Malcaba, not all the petitioners, had signed the verification and certification of non-forum shopping. The Supreme Court upheld

Uploaded by

Gen Grajo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

VDA. DE FORMOSO VS.

PNB
G.R. No. 154704

Facts: Nellie Vda. De Formoso (Nellie) and her five children executed a special power
of attorney in favor of Malcaba, authorizing him, among others, to secure all papers and
documents pertaining to loan with real estate mortgage originally secured by Nellie and
her late husband from PNB.

After buying the mortgage real properties from the Formosos, Malcaba and his lawyer
went to PNB to fully pay the loan obligation including the interests in the amount of
P2,461,024.7. PNB allegedly refused to accept Malcabas tender of payment and to
release the mortgage.

RTC: A Complaint for Specific Performance against PNB before RTC was filed by
Formosos praying that PNB be ordered to accept the money as full settlement of their
loan obligation. RTC rendered its decision in favor of the Formosos but the prayer for
exemplary or corrective damages, attorneys fees, and annual interest and daily interest
were denied for lack of evidence. PNB filed a MR but was denied for failure to comply
RULE 15, Section 6 of Rules of Civil Procedure and thereafter filed a Notice of Appeal
which was also dismissed for being filed out of time. The Formosos filed their Petition
for Relief from judgment questioning RTCs decision that there was no testimonial
evidence presented to warrant the award for moral and exemplary damages and
reasoned out that they could not then file a Motion for Reconsideration because they
could not get hold of a copy of the transcripts of stenographic notes. It was later denied
by RTC for lack of merit. An Omnibus Order was issued by RTC denying the Formosos
reconsideration.

CA: The CA, acting upon the petition for certiorari filed by the Formosos, denied the
petition on the ground that the verification and certification of non-forum shopping was
signed by only one (Macalba) of the many petitioners. The MR was also denied.

Issue: WON the rule on Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping be


liberally construed.

Contention of the Petitioners:


Questions of law are raised in a petition for certiorari and no factual issues that
require personal knowledge of the petitioners; and
Contention of PNB:
It is mandatory that all of the petitioners should sign the certification against
forum shopping. Malcabas signature alone is insufficient

Held: No. Section 4 of Rule 7 of the Rules states that a pleading is verified by an
affidavit that the affiant has read the pleading and that the allegations therein are true
and correct of his knowledge and belief. In Docena vs Lapesura, the SC ruled that the
certificate of non-forum shopping should be signed by all the petitioners or plaintiffs in a
case, and that the signing by only one of them is insufficient. The attestation on non-
forum shopping requires personal knowledge by the party executing the same, and the
lone signing petitioner cannot be presumed to have personal knowledge of the filing or
non-filing by his co-petitioners of any action or claim the same as similar to the current
petition.
It is clear that among the 7 petitioners (Nellie and 5 children and Malcaba) only
Malcaba signed the verification and certification of non-forum shopping in the subject
petition. There was no proof that Malcaba was authorized by his co-petitioners to sign
for them. There was no special power of attorney shown by the Formosos authorizing
Malcaba as their attorney-in-fact in filing a petition for review on certiorari. Neither could
the petitioners give at least a reasonable explanation as to why only he signed the
verification and certification of non-forum shopping. While the Rules of Court may be
relaxed for persuasive and weighty reasons to relieve a litigant from an injustice
commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedures, nevertheless
they must be faithfully followed.
In other cases, however, the SC applied the rule in liberality and leniency where
those who did not sign were relatives of the lone signatory. Since Malcaba is not a
relative of the Formosos, the Court is not persuaded to relax the requirement of strict
compliance with the rule regarding the certification against forum shopping.
It was also correctly argued by PNB that the substantive issue of whether or not
the petitioners are entitled to moral and exemplary damages as well as as attorneys
fees is a factual issue which is beyond the province of a petition for review on certiorari.

Petition: Denied

You might also like