FIRST DIVISION
|
MEDISERV,
INC., Petitioner, - versus - |
G.R.
No. 161368 Present: PUNO,
C.J., Chairperson, CARPIO
MORALES, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BERSAMIN,
and VILLARAMA,
JR., JJ. |
|
COURT
OF APPEALS (Special Former 13th Division) and LANDHEIGHTS
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondents. |
Promulgated: April
5, 2010 |
x-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -x
DECISION
VILLARAMA,
JR., J.:
Before the Court is a petition for
certiorari to nullify the September 16,
2003 Resolution[1]
of the Court of Appeals reinstating the Petition for Review of private
respondent Landheights Development Corporation and the November 7, 2003
Resolution[2]
denying the motion for reconsideration thereof.
The
facts are as follows:
On P17,617,960.00 for the subject
property.
Sometime in
April 1998, Landheights filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
On
WHEREFORE,
PREMISES CONSIDERED, judgment is hereby entered in favor of plaintiff and
against the defendant ordering the latter and all persons claiming rights under
said entity to VACATE the premises situated at
Costs against defendant.
SO ORDERED.
Aggrieved,
Mediserv appealed[5]
the decision to the RTC of Manila docketed as Civil Case No. 00-99395. On
WHEREFORE,
the Judgment of the Honorable Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 15,
Further, on the Counterclaims, the plaintiff-appellee is hereby directed to pay the defendant-appellant, the sum of Php 50,000.00 for actual damages and another sum of Php 50,000.00 for and as attorney’s fees.
With costs against plaintiff-appellee.
SO ORDERED.
On
Accordingly,
Landheights filed a Petition for Review[9]
with the Court of Appeals, which however dismissed the petition in a Resolution[10]
dated
It appearing that the written authority of Dickson Tan to sign the verification and certification on non-forum shopping, as well as the copies of the complaint and answer, are not attached to the petition, the petition is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Landheights
seasonably filed a motion for reconsideration[11]
on
On
On
With the subsequent compliance of the petitioner with the requirement of the rules and in the interest of substantial justice, We now consider the petition reinstated.
Respondent is hereby directed to file its comment on the petition within ten (10) days from notice and petitioner may file its reply within five (5) days from receipt of the comment.
SO ORDERED.
Mediserv
filed a motion for reconsideration[16]
on
On
However,
again, in the interest of justice, we shall consider the belatedly filed
Secretary’s Certificate as a subsequent compliance of our
WHEREFORE, this Court’s Resolution
dated
SO ORDERED.
Its
motion for reconsideration having been denied by the appellate court,
petitioner is now before us via the present recourse. Petitioner faults
the appellate court as follows:
THE RESPONDENT
COURT GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AND ACTED WITHOUT AND/ OR IN EXCESS OF
JURISDICTION IN REINSTATING THE PETITION DESPITE THE CLEAR MANDATE OF THE RULES
AS WELL AS THE JURISPRUDENCE AS LAID DOWN BY THIS HONORABLE COURT CALLING FOR
THE DISMISSAL OF THE SAID PETITION.[18]
Petitioner
argues that from the beginning, the Court of Appeals found the petition filed
before it to be defective for failure to comply with the rules. It points out that there is no showing that
the respondent corporation, through its board of directors, had authorized Mr.
Dickson Tan to file the petition for review in its behalf and to sign the verification
and certification against forum-shopping.
However, instead of upholding the dismissal of the petition, the Court
of Appeals allowed private respondent to rectify its deficiency, which is
contrary to jurisprudence.
Petitioner also
cites Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as
amended, which provides that failure to comply with the requirements on
certification against forum shopping shall not be curable by mere amendment of
the complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for dismissal of
the case. Petitioner thus asserts that
the appellate court acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in
excess of jurisdiction in reinstating the petition for review filed by
respondent corporation.
We
are not persuaded.
Under Rule 46, Section 3, paragraph 3
of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, petitions for certiorari
must be verified and accompanied by a sworn certification of non-forum
shopping.[19]
A pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant has read the
pleading and that the allegations therein are true and correct of his personal
knowledge or based on authentic records.[20]
The party need not sign the verification. A party’s representative, lawyer or
any person who personally knows the truth of the facts alleged in the pleading
may sign the verification.[21]
On the other hand, a certification
of non-forum shopping is a certification under oath by the plaintiff or
principal party in the complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim
for relief or in a sworn certification annexed thereto and simultaneously filed
therewith, (a) that he has not theretofore commenced any action or filed any
claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency
and, to the best of his knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending
therein; (b) if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete
statement of the present status thereof; and (c) if he should thereafter learn
that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall
report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court wherein his
aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.[22]
The requirement that a petitioner or
principal party should sign the certificate of non-forum shopping applies even
to corporations, considering that the mandatory directives of the Rules of
Court make no distinction between natural and juridical persons.[23]
A corporation, however, exercises its 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 by-laws or by a specific act of the board of directors.[24]
In the case of Digital Microwave
Corp. v. Court of Appeals,[25]
the certification of non-forum shopping was signed by the petitioner
corporation’s counsel; hence, the appellate court dismissed the petition for
failure to comply with Revised Supreme Court Circular No. 28-91, as amended.[26]
Petitioner corporation’s motion for reconsideration
was denied by the appellate court “absent any compelling reason for
petitioner’s failure to comply, at the first instance, with [the circular] ....”
On appeal, this Court denied the
petition in this wise:
In this case, petitioner has not adequately explained its failure to have the certification against forum shopping signed by one of its officers. Neither has it shown any compelling reason for us to disregard strict compliance with the rules.[27] (Emphasis supplied.)
In Shipside Incorporated v. Court
of Appeals,[28]
petitioner Shipside Incorporated filed a petition for certiorari and
prohibition with the Court of Appeals, which was, however, dismissed for
failure to attach proof that the one (1) who signed the verification and certification
of non-forum shopping, its Manager Lorenzo Balbin, Jr., was authorized to
institute the petition in petitioner’s behalf. Shipside Incorporated filed a motion for reconsideration
to which it attached a certificate issued by its board secretary stating that
ten (10) days before the filing of the petition, its board of directors
authorized Balbin, Jr. to file it. The Court of Appeals denied the motion for
reconsideration, so the petitioner sought relief from this Court. In granting the petition, this Court explained:
It is undisputed that on
The Court has consistently held that
the requirement regarding verification of a pleading is formal, not
jurisdictional (Uy v. LandBank, G.R. No. 136100,
On the other hand, the lack of certification against forum shopping is generally not curable by the submission thereof after the filing of the petition. Section 5, Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the failure of the petitioner to submit the required documents that should accompany the petition, including the certification against forum shopping, shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof. The same rule applies to certifications against forum shopping signed by a person on behalf of a corporation which are unaccompanied by proof that said signatory is authorized to file a petition on behalf of the corporation.
In certain exceptional circumstances, however, the Court has allowed the belated filing of the certification. In Loyola v. Court of Appeals, et al. (245 SCRA 477 [1995]), the Court considered the filing of the certification one day after the filing of an election protest as substantial compliance with the requirement. In Roadway Express, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, et al. (264 SCRA 696 [1996]), the Court allowed the filing of the certification 14 days before the dismissal of the petition. In Uy v. LandBank, supra, the Court had dismissed Uy’s petition for lack of verification and certification against non-forum shopping. However, it subsequently reinstated the petition after Uy submitted a motion to admit certification and non-forum shopping certification. In all these cases, there were special circumstances or compelling reasons that justified the relaxation of the rule requiring verification and certification on non-forum shopping.
In the instant case, the merits of petitioner’s case should be considered special circumstances or compelling reasons that justify tempering the requirement in regard to the certificate of non-forum shopping. Moreover, in Loyola, Roadway, and Uy, the Court excused non-compliance with the requirement as to the certificate of non-forum shopping. With more reason should we allow the instant petition since petitioner herein did submit a certification on non-forum shopping, failing only to show proof that the signatory was authorized to do so. That petitioner subsequently submitted a secretary’s certificate attesting that Balbin was authorized to file an action on behalf of petitioner likewise mitigates this oversight.
It must also 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 (Bernardo
v. NLRC, 255 SCRA 108 [1996]). Lastly, technical rules of procedure
should be used to promote, not frustrate justice. While the swift unclogging of
court dockets is a laudable objective, the granting of substantial justice is
an even more urgent ideal.[29]
(Italics in the original; emphasis and underscoring supplied.)
Unquestionably,
there is sufficient jurisprudential basis to hold that Landheights has
substantially complied with the verification and certification requirements. We have held in a catena of cases[30]
with similar factual circumstances that there is substantial compliance with
the Rules of Court when there is a belated submission or filing of the
secretary’s certificate through a motion for reconsideration of the Court of
Appeals’ decision dismissing the petition for certiorari.
In Ateneo de Naga University v. Manalo,[31] this Court acknowledged that it has relaxed, under justifiable circumstances, the rule requiring the submission of these certifications and has applied the rule of substantial compliance under justifiable circumstances with respect to the contents of the certification. It also conceded that if this Court has allowed the belated filing of the certification against forum shopping for compelling reasons in previous rulings, with more reason should it sanction the timely submission of such certification though the proof of the signatory’s authority was submitted thereafter.
The Court is
aware of the necessity for a certification of non-forum shopping in filing
petitions for certiorari as this is required under Section 1, Rule
However, we
must make a distinction between non-compliance with the requirements for
certificate of non-forum shopping and verification and substantial compliance
with the requirements as provided in the Rules of Court. The Court has allowed the belated filing of
the certification on the justification that such act constitutes substantial
compliance. In Roadway Express, Inc. v. CA,[33]
the Court allowed the filing of the certification fourteen (14) days before the
dismissal of the petition. In Uy v. Land Bank of the Philippines,[34]
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
Phils. Inc. v. NLRC,[35]
we acknowledged substantial compliance when the lacking secretary’s 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.
In the
present case, Landheights rectified its failure to submit proof of Mr. Dickson
Tan’s authority to sign the verification/certification on non-forum shopping on
its behalf when the required document was subsequently submitted to the
Court of Appeals. The admission of these documents, and consequently, the
reinstatement of the petition itself, is in line with the cases we have cited. In such circumstances, we deem it more in
accord with substantive justice that the case be decided on the merits.
It is settled that liberal
construction of the rules may be invoked in situations where there may be some
excusable formal deficiency or error in a pleading, provided that the same does
not subvert the essence of the proceeding and connotes at least a reasonable attempt
at compliance with the rules. After all, rules of procedure are not to be
applied in a very rigid, technical sense; they are used only to help secure
substantial justice.[36]
Finally, we note that the instant
petition was filed under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, as amended, which requires the existence of grave abuse of
discretion. Grave abuse of discretion exists where an act of a court or tribunal
is performed with a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to
lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to
amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a
duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the
power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or
personal hostility.[37]
No such grave abuse of discretion exists
in this case to warrant issuance of the extraordinary writ of certiorari.
WHEREFORE,
the petition is DISMISSED. The
Let the
records of this case be REMANDED to the Court of Appeals which is hereby
DIRECTED to take appropriate action thereon in light of the foregoing
discussion with DISPATCH.
With costs
against the petitioner.
SO
ORDERED.
|
|
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice |
|
WE
CONCUR: REYNATO S. PUNO Chief Justice Chairperson |
|
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice |
|
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice |
|
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the 1987 Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
|
|
REYNATO S. PUNO Chief Justice |
[1] In CA-G.R. SP No. 73352. Rollo, p.
37. Penned by Associate Justice Eliezer R. De Los
[2]
[3] AN ACT TO REGULATE THE
[4] CA rollo, pp. 16-27. Penned by Judge Maria Xytuz Rempola Turiano.
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18] Rollo, p. 14.
[19] 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, Rule 65, Section 1.
[20]
[21] Pajuyo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
146364,
[22] 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, Rule 7, Section 5.
[23]
Pascual
and Santos, Inc. v. The Members of the Tramo Wakas Neighborhood Association,
Inc., G.R. No. 144880, November 17, 2004,
442 SCRA 438, 446.
[24]
[25] 384 Phil. 842, 845 (2000).
[26] Additional Requisites for Petitions Filed with The Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals to Prevent Forum Shopping or Multiple Filing of Petitions and Complaints.
[27] Digital Microwave Corp. v. Court of Appeals, supra at 847.
[28] G.R. No. 143377,
[29]
[30] See e.g., China Banking Corporation v. Mondragon International Philippines,
Inc., G.R. No. 164798, November 17, 2005, 475 SCRA 332; Vicar International Construction, Inc. v.
FEB Leasing and Finance Corporation, G.R. No. 157195, April 22, 2005, 456 SCRA 588; Wack Wack Golf & Country Club v. National Labor Relations
Commission, G.R. No. 149793, April
15, 2005, 456 SCRA 280; General Milling
Corp. v. NLRC, 442 Phil. 425 (2002).
[31] G.R.
No. 160455,
[32] Shipside Incorporated v. Court of Appeals,
supra at 346.
[33] 332 Phil.
733 (1996).
[34] 391 Phil. 303 (2000).
[35] 423
Phil. 509, 513 (2001).
[36] Edillo
v. Dulpina, G.R. No. 188360,
[37] Intestate
Estate of Carmen de Luna v. IAC, G.R. No. 72424,