Here’s a compact-but-complete guide to the Verification and the Certification against Forum Shopping requirements under Philippine procedural law—what they are, when they’re required, how to draft them right, common pitfalls, consequences, and practical tips (with templates at the end).

1) Big picture

Verification is the sworn assurance that the allegations in your pleading are true and correct based on personal knowledge or authentic records. It promotes truthful pleadings.
The Certification against Forum Shopping (CAFS) is the sworn statement that:
1. you have not filed another case involving the same issues in any court/tribunal/agency;
2. if there is a similar case, you disclose where it is filed and its status; and
3. you undertake to inform the court within five (5) days if you later learn of a similar case.
Legal bases: Rule 7, Sections 4 and 5 of the Rules of Court (as amended), plus a long line of Supreme Court cases (e.g., First Philippine International Bank v. CA on forum shopping; Altres v. Empleo on compliance/relaxation; numerous cases on who must sign and consequences).

2) Verification: the essentials

2.1. What “verified” means

A pleading is verified by an affidavit declaring that:

the affiant has read the pleading; and
the allegations are true and correct based on personal knowledge or authentic records.

Notes

“Personal knowledge” means facts perceived directly by the affiant (not hearsay).
“Authentic records” covers documents the affiant can reliably identify (e.g., corporate ledgers, government records, original contracts).

2.2. Which pleadings must be verified

Some pleadings are expressly required by the Rules or special laws to be verified (e.g., petitions under Rules 45/65; certain special civil actions; election cases; family law petitions, etc.).
If a pleading is required to be verified and is not properly verified, it is treated like an unsigned pleading—generally producing no legal effect unless the court allows correction in the interest of justice.

2.3. Who may sign the Verification

Natural person: the party personally signs.
Multiple parties: each party who has personal knowledge should sign. If one signs for all, explain why others could not sign and show authority if signing on their behalf.
Corporation/partnership/JV: a duly authorized officer/representative with board resolution/secretary’s certificate or a special power of attorney (SPA) may sign. The officer’s personal knowledge or reliance on authentic records should be evident.
Government/government-owned entities: the authorized head or representative per charter, special law, or written authority—not the OSG/OGCC lawyer alone.
Counsel may sign only if also the party (rare) or when exceptionally allowed by jurisprudence (e.g., party is unavailable for compelling reasons), and facts show counsel’s personal knowledge or reliance on authentic records. This is the exception, not the rule.

2.4. Form and notarization

The Verification is typically a short, separate jurat-based affidavit (subscribed and sworn before a notary), or it may be integrated as a verification paragraph followed by a notarial acknowledgment/jurat.
Use the correct venue (place of execution), date, and government-issued ID details. Ensure the notary’s commission is valid in the place and on the date of notarization.

2.5. Defects and substantial compliance

Verification defects are generally formal, not jurisdictional. Courts may allow curing (e.g., submission of a corrected verification, late board resolution) especially absent intent to mislead and where the merits warrant liberality.
But a completely missing verification when one is mandatory can lead to dismissal or expunction, unless exceptional reasons justify relaxation.

3) Certification against Forum Shopping (CAFS)

3.1. Purpose and coverage

The CAFS deters multiple filings involving the same parties, causes, and reliefs to game the system.
It is required for initiatory pleadings—complaints, petitions, applications—filed in courts, quasi-judicial bodies, or agencies.
- Not generally required for non-initiatory submissions (e.g., answers, ordinary motions). Petitions for review, Rule 45 appeals, and Rule 65 petitions are initiatory and need a CAFS.

3.2. Exact undertakings to include

The CAFS must, under oath:

State that the party has not commenced any other action or claim involving the same issues in any court/tribunal/quasi-judicial agency;
If such other action exists, identify it completely (case title, docket number, parties, forum, assigned branch/division, filing date) and its status; and
Undertake to report within five (5) days from knowledge if a similar action is filed or discovered after the CAFS is executed.

3.3. Who must sign the CAFS

The principal party/ies themselves—not merely counsel. For multiple petitioners/plaintiffs, all should sign.
Exceptions / flexibility: The Court has allowed substantial compliance where (a) one party signs on behalf of similarly situated co-parties; (b) there is a common cause and shared relief, and (c) there is a reasonable explanation why others could not sign plus proof of authority (SPA/board resolution). Courts scrutinize these carefully.
Entities: same rules as Verification—authorized officer with written authority (board resolution/secretary’s certificate). Attach proof.

3.4. When and how forum shopping exists

Forum shopping arises when a party repetitively uses several judicial/quasi-judicial fora in pursuit of substantially the same reliefs on the same facts, thereby risking conflicting rulings. The usual tests:

Res judicata test: prior final judgment on the merits, identity of parties, causes, and reliefs.
Litis pendentia test: another case is pending with identity of parties, rights/causes, and reliefs.
Vexation/“splitting” test: filing in multiple fora to increase odds of a favorable result (even if technical identities slightly vary).

Disclose broadly. If in doubt, over-disclose potentially related cases in the CAFS with a brief explanation why they do or do not pose identity of issues.

3.5. Consequences of non-compliance or false certification

Absence of a CAFS in an initiatory pleading or a defective CAFS is generally a ground for dismissal. Courts may allow correction, but the default consequence is dismissal—especially when there is willful or deliberate non-compliance.
Willful forum shopping: summary dismissal with prejudice, possible direct/indirect contempt, administrative sanctions on counsel (fines, disciplinary action), and even criminal liability in extreme cases (e.g., perjury for false affidavits).

4) Practical drafting guidance

4.1. Verification checklist

The pleading requires verification (check the rule/special law).
Affiant is the party (or duly authorized representative).
Affirms reading the pleading and that facts are true and correct based on personal knowledge or authentic records.
For entities: attach board resolution/secretary’s certificate or SPA (dated, identifies case, empowers signatory).
Proper notarization (complete jurat/acknowledgment; valid commission; IDs indicated).
Dates align with the pleading’s date and annexes.

4.2. CAFS checklist

Initiatory pleading? If yes, CAFS is required.
Signed by the principal party/ies; if not all can sign, explain and attach authority for the signatory.
Complete disclosure of any similar actions: forum, docket, parties, branch/division, filing date, status.
Five-day undertaking included.
Notarized correctly.
For corporations/associations: attach authority documents.

4.3. Common pitfalls and how to avoid them

Counsel signing the CAFS without authority → Have the party sign; if impossible, secure SPA/board resolution and explain unavailability.
Vague disclosure (“there’s another case somewhere”) → Provide specifics; courts disfavor omissions.
Annex mismatch (dates, names, docket nos.) → Cross-check against the dockets and registry receipts.
Outdated CAFS (signed long before filing) → Execute the CAFS proximate to filing; if there’s a gap, state that no similar case has arisen during the gap.
Multiple petitioners with differing interests → Have each one sign separate CAFS, or clearly state the unity of interests and attach authorities.

4.4. Curability and liberality: when courts relax

Courts have relaxed strict compliance where:

There is substantial compliance (e.g., one of several petitioners signed, with explanation and subsequent ratification).
There is no intent to mislead, the case involves transcendental importance or substantial justice demands a resolution on the merits. But relaxation is discretionary, never guaranteed.

5) Interaction with special proceedings and special laws

Family courts / special proceedings (e.g., annulment, adoption, correction of entries): typically require verification; CAFS is required if initiatory.
Labor cases (NLRC/DOLE): verification/CAFS requirements often mirror Rule 7; check the governing rules/resolutions, but the forum-shopping principle still applies.
Quasi-judicial agencies (SEC, ERC, HLURB/HSAC, IPOPHL, etc.): their rules often require verification and forum-shopping declarations for complaints/petitions.
Criminal cases: Informations are not verified by the accused; but petitions to higher courts (e.g., Rule 65 assailing criminal interlocutory orders) do require verification and CAFS.

6) Sanctions, strategy, and ethics

Sanctions scale with culpability: innocent omission → often curable; willful concealment or parallel filings → dismissal with prejudice, contempt, fines, referral to the IBP.
Strategic tip: Avoid “protective” duplicate filings across fora. If you must preserve rights (e.g., alternative remedies), transparently explain distinctions in your CAFS and move to consolidate where appropriate.
Ethics: A false or misleading CAFS can expose both party and counsel to disciplinary action and perjury risks.

7) Templates (ready to adapt)

7.1. Verification (natural person)

VERIFICATION

I, [Name], of legal age, Filipino, with address at [address], after having been duly sworn, depose and state:

I am the [plaintiff/petitioner] in the foregoing [Complaint/Petition/etc.];

I have read the pleading and the allegations therein are true and correct based on my personal knowledge and/or authentic records; and

Annexes attached are true copies of the originals.

[Signature over printed name] Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this [date] at [place], affiant exhibiting [ID type/number/expiry]. [Notary Public details, commission, PTR, IBP, roll, etc.]

7.2. Verification (corporation/association)

Add a paragraph:

I am the [position] of [Entity], duly authorized to execute this Verification per [Board Resolution No. ___ dated ___/Secretary’s Certificate dated ___] (attached).

7.3. Certification against Forum Shopping

CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING

I, [Name], [party capacity], after being duly sworn, state:

I have not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, Court of Tax Appeals, or any other tribunal, or in any agency.

To the best of my knowledge, no such action is pending in any of the foregoing fora. — OR — There is a related action: [case title], [docket number], [court/tribunal/agency and branch/division], filed on [date], presently [status].

Should I thereafter learn that a similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, I undertake to inform this Honorable Court within five (5) days therefrom.

[Signature over printed name] [Capacity/Position; attach SPA/board resolution, if applicable]

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this [date] at [place], affiant exhibiting [ID details]. [Notary Public details]

7.4. Multi-petitioner note for the CAFS

If one signs for several:

I execute this Certification on my own behalf and, pursuant to the attached [SPA/Board Resolution/Joint Authorization], on behalf of [names] who share a common cause and relief; [brief explanation why others could not sign now]. They hereby ratify this Certification (Annex “__”).

8) Quick reference: Do’s and don’ts

Make the party sign (not just counsel).
Attach authority docs for entities/representatives.
Fully disclose similar cases with specifics.
Include the 5-day undertaking.
Notarize properly with valid IDs.

Don’t

File duplicate petitions in multiple fora “just in case.”
Omit a known related case (even if you think issues differ). Add a brief explanation instead.
Treat verification/CAFS as boilerplate—errors here can sink an otherwise meritorious case.

If you want, I can adapt the templates to your specific case (parties, forum, docket numbers, company authorizations) so you can paste them straight into your pleading.