Scribd
Upload
74 views2 pages

Charlie Hubilla Et - Al vs. Hsy Marketing LTD., Co., Et - Al.

1) Former employees of Novo Jeans aired grievances against their employer on a radio program claiming wrongful termination. 2) The employees filed a case that reached the Supreme Court arguing the verification requirement was not met before the Court of Appeals. 3) The respondents argued the verification was sufficient as the affiant attested the petition was based on facts from clients and authentic records. 4) The Supreme Court ruled a verification must be based on the affiant's personal knowledge or authentic records, not facts relayed by a client. Verifications based on "information and belief" will result in an unsigned pleading.

Uploaded by

nanyer
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
74 views2 pages

Charlie Hubilla Et - Al vs. Hsy Marketing LTD., Co., Et - Al.

1) Former employees of Novo Jeans aired grievances against their employer on a radio program claiming wrongful termination. 2) The employees filed a case that reached the Supreme Court arguing the verification requirement was not met before the Court of Appeals. 3) The respondents argued the verification was sufficient as the affiant attested the petition was based on facts from clients and authentic records. 4) The Supreme Court ruled a verification must be based on the affiant's personal knowledge or authentic records, not facts relayed by a client. Verifications based on "information and belief" will result in an unsigned pleading.

Uploaded by

nanyer
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

CHARLIE HUBILLA ET.AL VS. HSY MARKETING LTD., CO., ET.AL.

GR. NO. 207354, JANUARY 10, 2018, LEONEN, J.

FACTS:

The Respondents were engaged in manufacturing and selling goods under the brand
Novo Jeans. Sometime in May and June 2010, several Novo Jeans employees went to
Raffy Tulfo’s radio program to air their grievances against their employers for alleged
labor violations. These employees claimed that on June 7, 2010, they were not allowed
to enter the Novo Jeans branches they were employed in. They further averred that
while Novo Jeans sent them show cause letter the next day, they were in truth already
dismissed from employment.

Consequently, their case had reached the Supreme Court to which they argue that
Respondents were unable to substantially comply with the verification requirement
before the Court of Appeals. They submit that Respondent’s counsel would have been
privy to the antecedents of the case so as to have personal knowledge and not merely
knowledge relayed by his clients. They added that Respondents deliberately withheld
the Annexes of the Position Paper of the Petitioners submitted to the Labor Arbiter;
hence, said position Paper cannot be considered authentic.

On the other hand, Respondents argue that a defect in the verification will not
necessarily cause the dismissal of the pleading and that they had sufficiently complied
with the requirement when the affiant attested that the petition was based on facts
relayed by his clients and on authentic records. They also point out that only relevant
and pertinent documents should be attached to their pleadings before the courts; thus,
the annexes of petitioner, not being relevant or pertinent, need not be attached to their
pleadings.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the verification based on facts relayed to the affiant by his client is valid.

RULING:

No. 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 personal knowledge or based on
authentic records. A pleading required to be verified which contains a verification
based on “information and belief”, or upon knowledge, information and belief,” or lack
a proper verification, shall be treated as an unsigned pleading.

Thus, for a pleading to be verified, the affiant must attest that he or she has read the
pleadings and that the allegations are true and correct based on his or her personal
knowledge or on authentic records. Otherwise, the pleading is treated as an unsigned
pleading.

Moreover, facts relayed to the counsel by the client would be insufficient for counsel to
swear to the truth of the allegations in a pleading. Otherwise, counsel would be able to
disclaim liability for any misrepresentation by the simple expediency of stating that he
or she was merely relaying facts with which he or she had no competency to attest to.
For this reason, the Rules of Court require no less than personal knowledge of the facts
to sufficiently verify a pleading.

WHEREFORE, the petition was granted.

You might also like