This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2015-08-11 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| It is obligatory that the one signing the verification and certification against forum shopping on behalf of the principal party or the other petitioners has the authority to do the same.[23] We hold that the signature of only one Commissioner of petitioner PCGG in the verification and certification against forum shopping is not a fatal defect. | |||||
|
2013-01-07 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The requirement that it is the petitioner, not her counsel, who should sign the certificate of non-forum shopping is due to the fact that a "certification is a peculiar personal representation on the part of the principal party, an assurance given to the court or other tribunal that there are no other pending cases involving basically the same parties, issues and causes of action."[34] "Obviously, it is the petitioner, and not always the counsel whose professional services have been retained for a particular case, who is in the best position to know whether [she] actually filed or caused the filing of a petition in that case."[35] Per the above guidelines, however, if a petitioner is unable to sign a certification for reasonable or justifiable reasons, she must execute an SPA designating her counsel of record to sign on her behalf. "[A] certification which had been signed by counsel without the proper authorization is defective and constitutes a valid cause for the dismissal of the petition."[36] | |||||
|
2009-10-02 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In Fuentebella v. Castro,[16] the Court categorically stated that "if the real party-in-interest is a corporate body, an officer of the corporation can sign the certification against forum shopping so long as he has been duly authorized by a resolution of its board of directors."[17] In this case, the Certificate of Board Resolution attached to the petition for certiorari filed with the CA reads as follows: x x x in a meeting of the Board of Directors of the SAN MIGUEL BUKID HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, held on 7 November 1999, the following resolution was unanimously adopted by the General Assembly of the Association: | |||||
|
2009-01-19 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| We have held that the requirement of filing a certification against forum shopping applies to both natural and juridical persons. In Fuentebella v. Castro,[79]we laid down additional guidelines for compliance with the required certificate against forum shopping where the petitioner is a corporation and/or there are several petitioners, as follows:This requirement is intended to apply to both natural and juridical persons as Supreme Court Circular No. 28-91 and Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court do not make a distinction between natural and juridical persons. Where the petitioner is a corporation, the certification against forum shopping should be signed by its duly authorized director or representative. This was enunciated in Eslaban, Jr. v. Vda. de Onorio, where the Court held that if the real party-in-interest is a corporate body, an officer of the corporation can sign the certification against forum shopping so long as he has been duly authorized by a resolution of its board of directors. | |||||
|
2008-08-28 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court explicitly mandates that the petition for certiorari shall be accompanied by a sworn certification of non-forum shopping.[11] When the petitioner is a corporation, inasmuch as corporate powers are exercised by the board, the certification shall be executed by a natural person authorized by the corporation's board of directors.[12] Absent any authority from the board, no person, not even the corporate officers, can bind the corporation.[13] Only individuals who are vested with authority by a valid board resolution may sign the certificate of non-forum shopping in behalf of the corporation, and proof of such authority must be attached to the petition.[14] Failure to attach to the certification any proof of the signatory's authority is a sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition.[15] | |||||
|
2008-04-16 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court requires the plaintiff or principal party to execute a certification against forum shopping simultaneous with the filing of the complaint. In Fuentebella v. Castro,[18] the Court ruled that, if, for any reason, the principal party cannot sign the petition, the one signing on his behalf must have been duly authorized. Where such party is a corporate body, an officer of the corporation can sign the certification against forum shopping so long as he has been duly authorized by a resolution of its board of directors and a certification which had been signed without the proper authorization is defective and constitutes a valid cause for the dismissal of the petition.[19] | |||||
|
2007-11-23 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Necessarily, because the said dismissal is without prejudice and has no res judicata effect, and even if petitioners still indicated in the verification and certification of the second certiorari petition that the first had already been dismissed on procedural grounds,[33] petitioners are no longer required by the Rules to indicate in their certification of non-forum shopping in the instant petition for review of the second certiorari petition, the status of the aforesaid first petition before the CA. In any case, an omission in the certificate of non-forum shopping about any event that will not constitute res judicata and litis pendentia, as in the present case, is not a fatal defect. It will not warrant the dismissal and nullification of the entire proceedings, considering that the evils sought to be prevented by the said certificate are no longer present.[34] | |||||
|
2007-10-19 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| This Court has strictly been enforcing the requirement of verification and certification and enunciating that the obedience to the requirements of procedural rules is needed if fair results are to be expected therefrom. Utter disregard of the rules cannot just be rationalized by harking on the policy of liberal construction. While the requirement is not jurisdictional in nature, it does not make it less a rule... In Fuentebella and Rolling Hills Memorial Park, Inc. v. Castro,[24] we likewise declared that a certification without the proper authorization is defective and constitutes a valid cause for dismissal of the petition. We explained: The reason for this is that the principal party has actual knowledge whether a petition has previously been filed involving the same case or substantially the same issues. If, for any reason, the principal party cannot sign the petition, the one signing on his behalf must have been duly authorized. | |||||
|
2007-10-04 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In Fuentebella v. Castro,[16] this Court laid down additional guidelines for compliance with the required certificate of non-forum shopping, particularly, in cases where the petitioner is a corporation and/or there are several petitioners, to wit - | |||||