SC: Either of two sources of verification = sufficient basis

A pleading may be verified by attesting that the allegations are based either on personal knowledge and on authentic records, or on personal knowledge or on authentic records. The use of either, however, is not subject to the affiant's whim but rather on the nature of the allegations being attested to. Circumstances may require that the affiant attest that the allegations are based only on personal knowledge or only on authentic records. Certainly, there can be situations where the affiant must attest to the allegations being based on both personal knowledge and on authentic records.A reading of the above-quoted Section 4 of Rule 7 indicates that a pleading may be verified under either of the two given modes or under both. The veracity of the allegations in a pleading may be affirmed based on either one's own personal knowledge or on authentic records, or both, as warranted. The use of the [conjunction] "or" connotes that either source qualifies as a sufficient basis for verification and, needless to state, the concurrence of both sources is more than sufficient. Bearing both a disjunctive and conjunctive sense, this parallel legal signification avoids a construction that will exclude the combination of the alternatives or bar the efficacy of any one of the alternatives standing alone.

The range of permutation is not left to the pleader's liking, but is dependent on the surrounding nature of the allegations which may warrant that a verification be based either purely on personal knowledge, or entirely on authentic records, or on both sources.

Authentic records may be the basis of verification if a substantial portion of the allegations in the pleading is based on prior court proceedings. In Hubilla v. HSY Marketing (G.R. No. 207354. January 10, 2018), the annexes that respondents allegedly failed to attach are employee information, supporting documents, and work-related documents proving that petitioners were employed by respondents. The fact of petitioners' employment, however, has not been disputed by respondents. These documents would not have been the "relevant and pertinent" documents contemplated by the rules.

Popular Posts