notice of appeal filed by Estelita was a superfluity, the appeal having been perfected earlier by her husband.[30]     The passage finds persuasive application to the case at bar. As in this case, Varorient and Colarina were jointly sued under a common cause of action. By virtue of the requisite undertaking under the POEA Rules, Colarina is solidarily bound to Varorient for whatever liabilities may arise in this case. In De Leon, the timely filing by the husband of the notice of appeal was deemed to have inured to the benefit of his wife, who had filed a tardy notice of appeal of her own. Thus, in this case the substantial compliance by Varorient should likewise redound to the benefit of the other solidary obligors, such as Colarina, who may have been independently deficient in the execution of their own requirements.   The Court is ready to arrive at such a conclusion because it sees that Colarinas participation in this case is ultimately dispensable to its resolution. If Varorient were to be found liable and made to pay pursuant thereto, the entire obligation would already be extinguished[31] even if no attempt was made to enforce the judgment against Colarina. Because there existed a common cause of action against the three solidary obligors, as the acts and omissions imputed against them are one and the same, an ultimate finding that Varorient was not liable would, under these circumstances, logically imply a similar exoneration from liability for Colarina and Lagoa, whether or not they interposed any defense. The other contentious issue is whether the certificate of non-forum shopping filed by Varorient as a local manning agent is sufficient to cover and benefit its foreign principal, Lagoa. On that score, the Court of Appeals again erred in dismissing the petition since a very specific line of jurisprudence has emerged precisely to the effect that the foreign principal need not execute a separate verification and certification from that of the local agent.