Certification against forum shopping; non-compliance is

not curable by subsequent submission unless there is

substantial compliance or special circumstance. In this light,
the Court finds that the CA correctly dismissed Andersons
Petition for Review on the ground that the certificate of nonforum shopping attached thereto was signed by Atty. Oliva
on her behalf sans any authority to do so. While the Court
notes that Anderson tried to correct this error by later
submitting an SPA and by explaining her failure to execute
one prior to the filing of the petition, this does not
automatically denote substantial compliance. It must be
remembered that a defective certification is generally not
curable by its subsequent correction, and while it is true that
in some cases the Court considered such a belated
submission as substantial compliance, it did so only on
sufficient and justifiable grounds that compelled a liberal
approach while avoiding the effective negation of the intent
of the rule on non-forum shopping. Mary Louise Anderson v.
Enrique Ho, G.R. No. 172590. January 7, 2013

(G.R. No. 182075; September 15, 2010)

The Philippine American Life & General
Company vs. Joseph Enario

Insurance

Respondent tries in vain to reason out that by allowing Philamlife to present

its evidence ex parte, his right to due process was denied.
"The essence of due process is to be found in the reasonable opportunity to
be heard and submit any evidence one may have in support of ones defense. Where
the opportunity to be heard, either through verbal arguments or pleadings, is
accorded, and the party can present its side or defend its interest in due course,
there is no denial of procedural due process."[40]
Respondent had been given more than enough time to present his
evidence. The pre-trial date was reset four (4) times for a total period of 6 months
before the trial court allowed Philamlife to present its evidence ex parte when
respondent failed to appear on the scheduled date.