Juaban vs Espina

FACTS
-

This stemmed from 3 interlinked cases.

Heirs of Bancale sued for the recovery of certain properties against Eva
Paras and others (Case No. 1).
Petitioners Juaban and Zosa were their counsels. The heirs then entered
into an Agreement to Sell and to Buy with respondent Espina, where they
agreed to sell the subject property to respondent or his assignee with the
amount of P2M as advance payment on the purchase price.
Espina duly paid the said amount. He then designated respondent Cebu Bay
Discovery Properties, Inc. (CDPI) as the vendee.
Subsequently, respondents found out that Juaban and Zosa had filed a
motion to fix their attorneys fees which was granted and fixed by the RTC at
P9M.
The heirs moved for reconsideration but were denied. They filed a Notice of
Appeal which was indirectly overruled when the court granted the motion for
execution filed by petitioners. A writ of execution was then issued followed by
the sale of the subject properties to petitioners for P9M, despite the express
instruction of the writ that the attorneys fees were to be taken from the
money due from the buyer to the sellers under the agreement.
However, the RTC, under a new presiding judge, reversed and granted the
MR of the heirs.
Meanwhile, petitioners were able to obtain a final deed of sale from Sheriff
Gato on the ground that no redemption of the subject properties was made
(Thus, an administrative complaint against the sheriff was filed for allegedly
acting with manifest bias and partiality [Case No. 2]).
Respondents also filed an injunction and damages case to enjoin the sale in
a public auction by Sheriff Gato, allegedly unaware, at the time of the filing of
said case, that the properties had already been sold (Case No. 3).
The court granted petitioners Motion to Dismiss. On appeal, CA reversed
and ordered the writ of preliminary injunction to be made permanent.

ISSUE
-

1. Whether respondent Espina has authority to file the case. YES

2. Whether the certificate of non-forum shopping is invalid given that it was
only signed by one of the plaintiffs, i.e. respondent Espina. (Ergo, whether
the complaint should be dismissed due to non-compliance with the
requirements of the Rules.) NO &NO

Held:
-

Petitioners claimed that the complaint should have been dismissed

because Espina no longer had personal interest in the case as
he had assigned his rights to CDPI and that he was not

authorized to file on behalf of CDPI. However, citing Rule 3 Sec.

2 of the ROC, SC
ruled that Espina is a real party in interest
i n t h i s c a s e . T h u s , respondents right to the properties is
based on the Agreement to Sell and to Buy executed between the heirs
and respondent Espina. The said Agreement is the very source of
the right, the violation of which constituted the cause of action in
respondents complaint for i n j u n c t i o n b e f o r e t h e c o u r t a q u o . I t
w a s r e s p o n d e n t E s p i n a w h o entered into the Agreement, and
his rights as a party to the
s a i d c o n t r a c t w e r e n o t e x t i n g u i s h e d j u
s t b e c a u s e h e designated his co-respondent CDPI as
vendee of the subject properties.
.H a v i n g b e e n e s t a b l i s h e d a s a r e a l p a r t y i n i n t e r e s t ,
respondent Espina has not only the personality to file the
complaint in the third case, but also the authority to sign the
certification against forum shopping as a plaintiff therein.
Citing several cases, SC held that the certification against forum
shopping must be signed by the plaintiff or any of the principal parties
and not by counsel.
The general rule is that the certificate must be signed
b y a l l t h e plaintiffs or petitioners in a case and the signature of
only one
of t h e m i s i n s u f f i c i e n t . N e v e r t h e l e s s , t h e r u l e s o n f o r u m
shopping,w h i c h w e r e d e s i g n e d t o p r o m o t e a
n d f a c i l i t a t e t h e o r d e r l y administration of ju
s t i c e , s h o u l d n o t b e i n t e r p r e t e d w i t h s u c h absolute
literalness as to subvert their own ultimate and legitimate
objective. Strict compliance with the provisions r
e g a r d i n g t h e certificate of non-forum shopping merely underscores
its mandatory nature in that the certification cannot be altogether dispensed
with or its requirements completely disregarded. Thus, when all the
petitioners share a common interest and invoke a common
cause of action or defense, the signature
of only one of them in the certification ag
a i n s t f o r u m shopping substantially complies with the rules.