CASE DIGEST: Pascual and Santos Inc. v. Members of the Tramo Wakas Neighborhood Association

 

PASCUAL AND SANTOS, INC., petitioner, vs. THE MEMBERS OF THE TRAMO WAKAS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, INC. represented by DOMINGA MAGNO, respondents

G.R. No. 144880                |              November 17, 2004

 

FACTS:

The Members of Tramo Wakas Neighborhood Association lodged before the Presidential Action Center a petition praying that ownership over 3 parcels of land situated in Barangay San Dionisio, Parañaque, Metro Manila be awarded to them. In their petition, respondents alleged that petitioner claims ownership of the subject lots which they have openly, peacefully and continuously occupied since 1957.

The petition was referred to the Land Management Bureau (LMB) for investigation and hearing. After obtaining an unfavorable decision from the LMB and the Office of the DENR Secretary, petitioners filed a petition for review with the CA.

By Resolution of May 17, 2000, the CA dismissed the appeal due to infirm Verification and Certification of non-forum shopping and belated filing. The CA stated in its decision that the Verification and Certification of non-forum shopping was signed merely by Estela Lombos and Anita Pascual who allege that they are the duly authorized representatives of petitioner corporation, without showing any proof whatsoever of such authority.

Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration arguing that there was no showing that the persons acting on its behalf were not authorized to do so. Attached to the Motion was a Secretary’s Certificate showing that petitioner’s Board of Directors approved a Resolution on February 11, 2000 appointing Estela Lombos and Anita Pascual, incumbent directors of the corporation, as its duly authorized representatives who may sign all papers, execute all documents, and do such other acts as may be necessary to prosecute the petition for review that it would file with the CA assailing the decision rendered in OP Case.

The CA denied petitioner’s MR for lack of merit. It ruled that any person who claims authority to sign, in behalf of another, the Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping, as required by the rules, must show sufficient proof thereof. Bare allegations are not proof, and the representation of one who acts in behalf of another cannot, by itself, serve as proof of his authority to act as agent or of the extent of his authority as agent.

ISSUE:

WHETHER OR NOT THE PERSONS WHO EXECUTED THE VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING ATTACHED TO PSI’S MANIFESTATION/PETITION FOR REVIEW FILED WITH THE COURT OF APPEALS WERE authorized to do so

RULING:

Section 6 (d) of Rule 43 in relation to Section 2 of Rule 42 of the Rules of Court mandates that a petition for review shall contain a sworn certification against forum shopping in which the petitioner shall attest that he has not commenced any other action involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency; if there is such other action or proceeding, he must state the status of the same; and if he should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before this Court, the Court of Appeals, or different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency, he undertakes to promptly inform the aforesaid courts and other tribunal or agency thereof within five days therefrom.

For failure to comply with this mandate, Section 7 of Rule 43 provides:

SEC. 7. Effect of failure to comply with requirements.·The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful fees, the 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.

The requirement that the petitioner 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.

In the case at bar, the CA dismissed the petition before it on the ground that Lombos and Pascual, the signatories to the verification and certification on non-forum shopping, failed to show proof that they were authorized by petitioner’s board of directors to file such a petition.

It is undisputed that when the petition for certiorari was filed with the CA, there was no proof attached thereto that Lombos and Pascual were authorized to sign the verification and non-forum shopping certification. Subsequent to the CA’s dismissal of the petition, however, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration to which it attached a certificate issued by its board secretary stating that prior to the filing of the petition, Lombos and Pascual had been authorized by petitioner’s board of directors to file the petition before the CA.

The Court has ruled that the subsequent submission of proof of authority to act on behalf of a petitioner corporation justifies the relaxation of the Rules for the purpose of allowing its petition to be given due course.