276775 Teresita P. De Guzman, et al. Vs. Commission on Audit — Official PDF

Decision il G.R. No. 276775 The act of signing a pleading constitutes a warranty of good faith in its filing and the existence of factual and legal bases therefor. Only the party, per se, is in a position to make such warranty, being the one most cognizant of the legal and factual bases of their claims. Rule 7, Section 3(b) of the Rules of Court extends this cognizance to the counsel by virtue of the information shared to them by virtue, of the lawyer-client relationship. In the early case of United States v. Ney,®: Section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure,°! providing that every pleading must be subscribed by the party or his attorney, does not permit, and by implication prohibits, a subscription of the names of any other persons, whether agents or otherwise; therefore a signature containing the name of one neither a party nor an attorney was not a compliance with this section, nor was it aided by the too obvious subterfuge of the addition of the individual name of a licensed attorney. The illegality in this instance was aggravated by the fact that one of the agents so named was a person residing in these Islands to whom this court had expressly denied admission to the bar. The papers in question were irregular and were properly rejected. We refuse to recognize as a practice any signature of names appended to pleadings or other papers in an action other than those specified in the statute. A signature by agents amounts to a signing by non-qualified attorneys, the office of attorney being originally one of agency... We do not, however, mean to discountenance the use of a suitable firm designation by partners, all of whom have been duly admitted to practice. We therefore sustain the OSG’s contention that the present Petition for Certiorari should be treated as an unsigned pleading with no legal effect.® Not only are judicial agents prohibited from appearing before the Supreme Court, the act of signing a pleading is personal to a party and cannot be delegated to an ordinary agent who is not a member of the Bar. Petitioners’ reliance on Dandoy v. Court of Appeals and Wee v. Galvez®° is misplaced, because in the former case, the party and her attorney-in-fact were represented by counsel, while in the latter, the party represented by the non-lawyer atiorney-in-fact was out of the Philippines and could not sign pleadings personally. There is no showing that petitioners are out of the country nor otherwise unable to sign their pleadings personally. 6 8 Phil. 146 (1907) [Per J. Tracey, First Division). Sl SECTION 102. Authentication of Pleadir Every pleading must be subscribed by the party or his attorney and a copy thereof must be forthwith fursished to the adverse party or his attomey. Cf. RULES OF Courr, rule 7, sec. 3(a). @ United States vy. Ney, 8 Phil. 146, 147 (1907) [Per J. Tracey, First Division]. (Citations omitted, footnote supplied.) 63 L- People Manpower Resources, Ine. v. Court of Appeals, 934 Phil. 686, 697 (2023) [Per J. JY. Lopez, Second Division]; Batanguefto Humai Resources, Inc. vy, De Jesus, 932 Phil. 231, 235-236 (2022) [Per J. Kho, Jr, Second Division]; Spouses Mariane ¥. Abrajfano, 900 Phil, 1, 7-8 (2021) [Per J. Perlas- Bernabe, Second Division]. 64 $58 Phil. 90 (2007) [Per J. Nachura, Third Division}. S479 Phi}. 737 (2004) [Per J. Quisumbing, First Division].