Non-forum shopping

To curb the malpractice of a party from instituting two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause with the intention of getting a favorable decision from one or the other courts, the Rules now require that every case filed must be accompanied by a "Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping". The plaintiff or the principal party shall certify under oath in the complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief that he has not commenced any action or filed any complaint involving the same issues in any other court and that no such other action is pending therein. Without such certification, the case will be dismissed (Section 5, Rule 7 Rules of Court). The question arising in this case of the spouses Ric and Vera is on whether such certificate is likewise required in the filing of a compulsory counterclaim to the complaint they have filed.

The spouses were the registered owners of a parcel of land with an area of 19,405 square meters. They mortgaged the said land in favor of a Rural Bank (the bank) to secure a loan of P515,000 which they obtained from said bank. When the bank foreclosed the mortgage and auctioned the property with the bank emerging as the highest bidder and consolidating ownership over the property, Ric and Vera sued the bank before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for annulment of the foreclosure sale and damages. The spouses claimed that no prior demand or notice was given them before instituting the foreclosure proceeding. They further alleged that the foreclosure sale was conducted without proper publication as the Sheriff’s notice was published in a newspaper that was not of general circulation. They claimed that they were not notified of the foreclosure sale and were not given an opportunity to redeem their property.

In answer, the bank denied specifically the said allegations of the spouses alleging that oral and written demands were made upon the spouses to pay their loan but they ignored them; that proper notice of the filing of the petition for foreclosure was given them; that there was proper notices and publication of the foreclosure sale through public auction; and that the spouses were actually given more than two years to redeem their property, but they failed to do so. By way of compulsory counterclaim, the bank alleged that because of the spouses’ clearly unfounded action, it suffered actual damages of P100,000; compensatory damages of P100,000; moral damages of P500,000 and litigation expenses of P50,000. So the bank asked that said damages be paid by the spouses.

In reply, the spouses asked the RTC to dismiss the counterclaim as it was not accompanied by a certification against non-forum shopping. Were the spouses correct?

No. The Rule distinctly provides that the required certification against forum shopping is intended to cover an initiatory pleading, meaning an incipient application of a party asserting a claim for relief. The bank’s answer with counterclaim is not an initiatory pleading but a responsive pleading filed merely to counter the spouses’ complaint that initiates the civil action. In other words, the rule requiring such certification does not contemplate a defendant’s/respondent’s claim for relief that is derived only from, or is necessarily connected with, the main action or complaint. In fact upon failure by the plaintiff to comply with such requirement, the Rule directs the dismissal of the case without prejudice, not the dismissal of the defendant’s counterclaim (Carpio and Orendain vs. Rural Bank of Sto. Tomas Inc., G.R. 153171).

E-mail at: [email protected]