UWE MATHAEUS, petitioner

SPOUSES ERIC and GENEVIEVE MEDEQUISO, respondent

G.R NO. 196651 February 3, 2016
The Facts:
In a civil case, the MTCC of Tagbilaran issued a Decision ordering petitioner to pay
respondent spouses the amount P30,000.00 with legal interest, attorneys fees a
costs. Petitioner appealed but the RTC affirmed the MTCC judgement.
The Court of Appeals ratiocinated that the Verification and Certification on NonForum Shopping was sworn to not before a notary public but before a clerk of court
ergo considered as improperly verified and treated as unsigned and dismissible.

The Issues:
WON clerks of court are at liberty to notarize complaints, answers, petitions, or any
other pleadings on a daily or regular basis.
WON such action would lead to the dismissal of the case.

The Ruling:
The Court denies the Petition.
We have held that Clerks of Court are notaries public ex-officio, and may thus
notarize documents or administer oaths but only when the matter is related to the
exercise of their official functions. x x x Clerks of court should not, in their ex-officio
capacity, take part in the execution of private documents bearing no relation at all
to their official functions.
This Court cannot agree with petitioners argument that the notarization of
verifications and certifications on non-forum shopping constitutes part of a clerk of
courts daily official functions. The court averred that Petitioners procedural misstep
forms part of a series of lapses committed in the prosecution of his case. From the
MTCC level, he failed to file a verified Answer to respondents Complaint. He did not
also furnish a copy thereof to respondents; thus, resulted to the responsive pleading
and judgement of the MTCC against him. In the level of the CA, he committed
another mistake, that he caused his Petition for Review to be notarized by the RTC
Clerk of Court where his case is pending. At this point, petitioner and his counsel are
expected to be more circumspect in their actions, avoiding the commission of
questionable acts that jeopardize their case.

The court presented that under Sections 1 and 2, Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, a party desiring to appeal from a decision of the RTC rendered in the
exercise of its appellate jurisdiction may file a verified petition for review with the
CA, submitting together with the petition a certification on non-forum shopping.
Under Section 3 of the same Rule, "the failure of the petitioner to comply with any
of the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful
fees, the deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of and
the documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for
the dismissal thereof''.
With respect to certifications against forum-shopping, the court repeatedly held that
non-compliance therewith or a defect therein, unlike in verification, is generally not
curable by its subsequent submission or correction thereof, unless there is a need to
relax the Rule on the ground of 'substantial compliance' or presence of 'special
circumstances or compelling reasons. From the stated circumstances, the court is
not inclined to relax the rules for the petitioners benefit; it perceives no compelling
reasons to rule in his favour. The CA pronouncement ordering the dismissal of his
petition for Review is just and thus should stand.