allowed the filing of the certification fourteen (14) days before the dismissal of the petition.  InUy v. LandBank,[21] the Court reinstated a petition on the ground of substantial compliance even though the verification and certification were submitted only after the petition had already been originally dismissed.  In Havtor Management Philippines Inc. v. NLRC,[22] we acknowledged substantial compliance when the lacking secretarys certificate was submitted by the petitioners as an attachment to the motion for reconsideration seeking reversal of the original decision dismissing the petition for its earlier failure to submit such requirement.   As with Havtor, Varorient rectified its failure to submit proof of its Corporate Secretarys authority to sign the verification/certification on non-forum shopping on its behalf when the necessary document was attached to its motion for reconsideration before the Court of Appeals. The admission of these documents, and consequently, the petition itself, is in line with the cases we have cited. It must be kept in mind that while the requirement of the certificate of non-forum shopping is mandatory, nonetheless the requirements must not be interpreted too literally and thus defeat the objective of preventing the undesirable practice of forum shopping. [23] We now turn to the more crucial and ultimately determinative issues.   The Court of Appeals, in dismissing the petition, cited the failure of Colarina, president of Varorient, to execute a separate certification. We hold that this ground ultimately does not justify the dismissal of the petition by the Court of Appeals.     The POEA Rules and Regulations Governing the Recruitment and Employment of Seafarers (POEA Rules) makes clear that the corporate officers, directors and partners are required to execute a verified undertaking that they would be jointly and severally liable with the company over claims arising from