1. RUFINA S. JORGE, VS. ALBERTO C.
MARCELO, JOEL SAN PASCUAL, ROMEO SALEN, CELSO
SANTOS, HIGINO DALANGIN, JR., EDUARDO A. GARCIA, JULIUS FRONDA, ROGELIO VERGARA,
LARRY P. TORRES, RODEL L. ZAMORA, ALEXANDER F. SUERTE, EDISIO G. CASEBO, FERNANDO
ENORME, NOEL ALMAZAN, REGINO CRUZ, RONALD ALLAM, LOLITO DIZON, CECERON S. PENA,
JR., RENATO M. ZONIO, ROBERTO F. LAYUSON, CRISTOSI S. ALBOR, ROGER TIBURCIO, AND
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (THIRD DIVISION), G.R. No. 232989, March
18, 2019
FACTS:
The present controversy arose from the cases for illegal dismissal, among others, filed against petitioner
by private respondent wherein the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision in favor of herein private
respondents.
Rufina filed a Third Party Claim praying to suspend and cancel the execution proceedings with respect to
the Property subject of the Third Party Claim. Private respondents filed a comment with a motion to
dismiss to which the Labor arbiter granted.
To set aside the Order, Rufina filed before the NLRC a Petition for Extraordinary Remedies under Rule XII
of the NLRC Rules but the same was dismissed for lack of merit. Thus, Rufina elevated the case to the CA
via petition for certiorari but the same was dismissed due to procedural defects. The defects include,
among others, the following: (1.) The Jurat of the Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping
is defective there being no competent proof of affiant's identity as required under 09-8-13 SC
Resolution; (2.) The date of issue of Atty. Mark Anthony De Leon's PTR Number is not updated for the
current year, in contravention of the Notarial law.
Subsequent motion for reconsideration was likewise dismissed for failure to sufficiently explain/ cure
the first defect.
In the present petition, Rufina counters that Section 12,20 Rule II of the Notarial Rules only defines
competent evidence of identity and does not require that it be presented in all affirmation or oath
and jurat. Under Sections 2(b)21 and 6(b),22 Rule II, affirmation or oath and jurat can be done even if
there is no competent evidence of identity as long as the signatory is personally known to the notary
public. It is also argued that she should not be held responsible for explaining the declaration of
personal knowledge because it was a statement of the notary public, not her or her counsel, and that
the order to explain as to how the notary public and the signatory of the instrument or document
personally knew each other finds no basis under the Notarial Rules. Moreover, Rufina contends that in
her case there is nothing in the Notarial Rules which requires the details of competent evidence of
identity to be indicated on the notarized document. Even so, the failure to record such details does not
automatically mean that the competent evidence of identity was not presented to the notary public as it
is possible that it was in fact submitted but the notary public did not make it appear as such. Rufina
asserts that the failure to indicate the details of the competent evidence of identity pertains to the
notary public; hence, she should not be penalized by way of dismissal of her petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not the CA erred in dismissing Rufina’s petition on the ground of that the Jurat of the
Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping is defective there being no competent proof of
affiant's identity.
RULING: Yes. The rule that the signatory to an instrument or document must present his/her
identification card issued by an official agency, bearing his/her photograph and signature, has
exceptions. In Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. v. Dela Cruz, et al., the presentation of a Community Tax
Certificate (CTC) in lieu of other competent evidence of identity was allowed because a glitch in the
evidence of the affiant's identity should not defeat his petition and may be overlooked in the interest of
substantial justice, taking into account the merits of the case.
Also, similar to Rufina's case, a notary public may be excused from requiring the presentation of
competent evidence of identity if the signatory before him is personally known to him.
"[The] phrase 'personally known' contemplates the notary public's personal knowledge of the
signatory's personal circumstances independent and irrespective of any representations made by the
signatory immediately before and/or during the time of the notarization. It entails awareness,
understanding, or knowledge of the signatory's identity and circumstances gained through firsthand
observation or experience which therefore serve as guarantee of the signatory's identity and thus
eliminate the need for the verification process of documentary identification." The jurat or affirmation
or oath, or acknowledgment must contain a statement that the affiant is personally known to the notary
public; it cannot be assumed.
Here, the notarial certificate of the Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping that was
attached to Rufina's petition for certiorari filed before the CA stated that she is personally known to the
notary public.The fact that it contained no details of her competent evidence of identity is
inconsequential simply because its presentation may be excused or dispensed with. If it is not required
for the affiant to show competent evidence of identity in case he/she is personally known to the notary
public, with more reason that it is unnecessary to state the details of such competent evidence of
identity in the notarial certificate.
The foregoing considered, the CA should have decided the Petition for Certiorari based on its merits. It
should have determined whether or not the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the
Petition for Extraordinary Remedies, which assailed the June 16, 2016 Order of Labor Arbiter Santos. A
plain reading of the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure, as amended, would reveal that the NLRC gravely
abused its discretion in dismissing outright the petition due to Rufina's failure to post a cash or surety
bond.
Petition granted.
