THIRD DIVISION
|
PHILIPPINE RABBIT
BUS LINES, INC., Petitioner, - versus - ALADDIN TRANSIT CORP., ANACLETO VILLARICO and
ESTEBAN ZIPAGAN, Respondents. |
G.R. No. 166279 Present: QUISUMBING, J., Chairperson, CARPIO,
CARPIO MORALES, TINGA, and VELASCO, JR., JJ. Promulgated: June
30, 2006 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO
MORALES, J.:
Assailed
by petition for review on certiorari is the Court of Appeals Decision[1] of
Petitioner, Philippine Rabbit Bus
Lines, Inc. (Philippine Rabbit) and respondent Aladdin Transit Corporation (Aladdin
Transit) are public utilities engaged in the land transportation business. [2]
On
Philippine Rabbit Bus 676 was driven
by Maximo Dabu while Aladdin Transit Bus
451 and Bus 886 were driven by Esteban Zipagan and Anacleto Villarico,
respectively.
As a result of the accident, the rear
right bumper and rear right side body including the engine compartment cover of
Philippine Rabbit Bus 676 were dented.[3] The rear body of Aladdin Transit Bus 451 was
also dented, while the front portion and body of Aladdin Transit Bus 886 were heavily
damaged.[4]
The estimated cost of repair of Philippine
Rabbit Bus 676 was in the total amount of P30,107.00.[5] A written demand[6]
for Aladdin Transit to settle the said amount was sent but it remained unheeded.[7]
Philippine Rabbit thus filed on September
16, 1996 with the RTC of Quezon City a complaint[8]
for damages against Aladdin Transit and its drivers, praying for the payment of
the cost of repair in the amount of P30,107.00, unrealized income of P231, 302.25 for the 45 days that
Bus 676 was under repair, as well as interests and attorney’s fees.[9] Attached to the complaint was a verification
and certification of non-forum shopping signed by Philippine Rabbit’s counsel,
Atty. Elmer A. Dela Rosa.[10]
To the complaint, Aladdin Transit
filed a motion to dismiss[11]
on two grounds one of which was that the certification of non-forum shopping
attached to the complaint was signed by the plaintiff’s counsel and not by the
party itself, contrary to Supreme Court Circular 04-94.
After Philippine Rabbit submitted its
opposition to the motion to dismiss,[12] the
trial court, by Order[13]
of
Aladdin Transit filed its Answer[15]
alright, albeit belatedly. In its Answer,[16] it
averred, among other things, that it was the Philippine Rabbit driver who was
at fault as he drove Bus 676 in a reckless manner; and that assuming that its
drivers were at fault, it could not be held liable, it having exercised due
diligence in their selection and supervision.
Aladdin Transit thus concluded that
Philippine Rabbit had no cause of action.
And it reiterated its claim that the trial court lacked jurisdiction
over the case.
By way of counterclaim, Aladdin
Transit sought to recover P15,000 for each of its two damaged buses, unrealized
income of P210,000.00 for 30 days that they were under repair, exemplary
damages and attorney’s fees.[17]
On the scheduled pre-trial on
The trial court, holding Aladdin
Transit and its Bus 886 driver Villarico solidarily liable for the vehicular accident,
rendered judgment in favor of Philippine Rabbit, disposing as follows:
Wherefore, judgment is hereby ordered against the defendants Anacl[e]to Villarico and Aladdin Transit Corporation and in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the defendants Villarico and Aladdin to pay jointly and severally the following:
1.
The sum of Thirty Thousand One Hundred Seven Pesos (P30,107.00)
as the cost of repair of the damaged vehicle plus legal interest until the
amount is fully paid;
2.
The sum of P231,302.25 representing the
unrealized revenue;
3. Attorney’s fees in the reduced amount of P20,000.00 plus appearance fee of P750.00; and
4. Cost of suit.
The complaint against defendant Esteban Zipagan is hereby DISMISSED.[19]
Aladdin Transit’s motion for
reconsideration was denied.
Before the Court of Appeals to which Aladdin
Transit appealed, it faulted the trial court in not dismissing the complaint
due to defective verification and certification of non-forum shopping;[20]
in denying its motion for reconsideration/new trial in light of the abandonment
of the case by its former counsel;[21] in finding it negligent in the selection and
supervision of its employees;[22]
and in awarding damages to Philippine Rabbit.[23]
By Decision[24]
of
Its motion for reconsideration[28] having
been denied, Philippine Rabbit filed the present petition for review on certiorari
on
Sections 1 and 4 of Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court require that a petition for review on certiorari filed with this Court
should be verified and should contain a certificate of non-forum shopping.
SECTION 1. Filing
of petition with Supreme Court. – A party desiring to appeal by certiorari
from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the
Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other courts whenever authorized by
law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on
certiorari. x x x
SEC. 4. Contents of petition. – The petition shall be filed in eighteen (18) copies, with the original copy intended for the court being indicated as such by the petitioner, and shall x x x (e) contain a sworn certification against forum shopping as provided in the last paragraph of section 2, Rule 42. (Underscoring supplied)
These
requirements are mandatory, failure to comply with which is sufficient ground
for the dismissal of the petition.[29]
Revised Circular No. 28-9 in fact require all petitions filed
with this Court to, not only comply with the above-quoted provisions of Rule 45,
but also the following:
[I]n every petition filed with the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals, the petitioner, aside from complying with pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court and existing circulars, must certify under oath all of the following facts or undertakings: (a) he has not theretofore commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agencies; (b) to the best of his knowledge, no such action or proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or different Divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency; (c) if there is such other action or proceeding pending, he must state the status of the same; and (d) if he should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or different Divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency, he undertakes to promptly inform the aforesaid courts and such other tribunal or agency of that fact within five (5) days therefrom.
The
requirement that the petitioner sign the certificate of non-forum shopping applies even
to corporations as the mandatory directives of the Rules of Court make no
distinction between natural and juridical persons.[30]
Petitioner’s
counsel, alleging that his failure to incorporate a verification and
certificate of non-forum shopping in the present petition was “inadverten[t] which
could be considered an excusable negligence,”[31] filed
on
VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION
I,
RAMON M. NISCE, of legal age, Filipino, married and a resident of
Philippine Rabbit Building,
1. That I am the Petitioner in the Petition for Review on Certiorari in G.R. No. 166279 filed with [the] Supreme Court;
2. That I caused the preparation of this petition;
3. That I read and understood all contained therein, and the same are true and correct of my knowledge;
4. That I certify under oath that:
a.) I have not commenced any other action or proceeding which is pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or any tribunal or agency;
b.) To be (sic) best of my knowledge, no such action or proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency;
5. That I likewise undertake that:
a.) If there is such action or proceeding which is either pending or terminated, we will state the status thereof;
b.) If I should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceedings (sic) has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or any other tribunal or agency, we will undertake to report the fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court/agency wherein the original pleading and sworn certification contemplated the (sic) Administrative Circular No. 04-94.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have affixed
my signature this 16th say of February,
2005 at
x x x x[32] (Underscoring supplied)
The
complaint for damages filed before the trial court, as well as the present
petition, was filed by Philippine Rabbit as the title thereof clearly states. Thus, contrary to the claim of Ramon M. Nisce
who accomplished the immediately quoted Verification and Certification, he is not
the petitioner.
Philippine
Rabbit is, however, a juridical entity, hence, it may only exercise its right to
file a suit by a specific act of its board of directors or any duly authorized
officer or agent.
A corporation, such as the petitioner, has no powers except those expressly conferred on it by the Corporation Code and those that are implied by or are incidental to its existence. In turn, a corporation exercises said powers through its board of directors and/or its duly authorized officers and agents. Physical acts, like the signing of documents, can be performed only by natural persons duly authorized for the purpose by corporate bylaws or by a specific act of the board of directors. “All acts within the powers of a corporation may be performed by agents of its selection; and, except so far as limitations or restrictions which may be imposed by special charter, by-law, or statutory provisions, the same general principles of law which govern the relation of agency for a natural person govern the officer or agent of a corporation, of whatever status or rank, in respect to his power to act for the corporation; and agents once appointed, or members acting in their stead, are subject to the same rules, liabilities and incapacities as are agents of individuals and private persons.”[33]
Petitioner’s
counsel claims in the motion to admit verification and certification that Nisce
is the Chairman of the Board of Directors and Treasurer of Philippine Rabbit[34]
and “ha[s] been the Chief Legal Counsel of the petitioner since he
married Mrs. Natividad Paras-Nisce, one of the founders, incorporators and
president of [Philippine Rabbit], a family owned corporation . . . [a]nd is aware of all cases in
litigation of [Philippine Rabbit].”[35]
Nisce,
however, did not personally attest to these facts and did not adduce proof that
he is indeed the corporate officer charged with monitoring petitioner’s legal
cases before courts or quasi-judicial agencies.[36]
As in its complaint filed by petitioner before
the trial court which, as correctly found by the appellate court, bore a
defective certification of non-forum shopping, it having been merely executed
by its then counsel Atty. Elmer A. Dela Rosa without any showing that he was
empowered to do the same,[37] the
certification of non-forum shopping executed by Nisce is defective.
While cases
should, to serve the ends of justice, be determined on the merits, after full
opportunity is afforded all parties to ventilate their cause and defenses,
rather than on technicality or some procedural imperfections, this only holds
true if parties endeavor to satisfactorily explain the lapse and subsequently comply
with the requirements.[38]
Petitioner,
however, failed to come up with a satisfactory explanation for its lapses. Even after Aladdin Transit questioned the
authority of Nisce to sign and execute the certificate of non-forum shopping,
petitioner still failed to subsequently submit the requisite documents to prove
the existence of such authority.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
Costs
against petitioner.
SO
ORDERED.
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A.
QUISUMBING
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO J.
VELASCO, JR.
Associate
Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above
Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
LEONARDO
A. QUISUMBING
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the
Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, it is hereby
certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court.
REYNATO S PUNO
Acting Chief
Justice
[1] CA rollo, pp. 133-142, penned by Justice Josefina Guevara-Salonga concurred in by Justices Portia Aliño-Hormachuelos and Jose C. Reyes, Jr.
.
[2] Records, p. 1.
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10] Id. at 4-5.
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16] Ibid.
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20] Id. at 25-26.
[21] CA
rollo, pp. 27-29.
[22] Id. at 36.
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26] Id. at 139.
[27]
[28]
[29] Rule 45, Section 5 of the Rules of Court provides to wit:
SEC. 5. Dismissal or denial of petition. – The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful fees, deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of and the documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof.
x x x x
[30] Pascual and
[31] Rollo, p. 33.
[32]
[33] BA Savings Bank v. Sia, G.R. No. 131214, July 27, 2000, 336 SCRA 484, 488.
[34] Rollo, p. 33.
[35]
[36] Vide Republic v. Carmel
Development, Inc., G.R. No. 142572,
[37] Records, pp. 4-5.
[38] Donato v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
129638,