Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SHIPSIDE INCORPORATED v. CA

This case has been cited 28 times or more.

	GR No. 173186 2015-09-16	ANICETO UY v. CA JARDELEZA, J.
We have ruled that the general rule is that non-compliance or a defect in the certification is not curable by its subsequent submission or correction. However, there are cases where we exercised leniency and relaxed the rules on the ground of substantial compliance, the presence of special circumstances or compelling reasons.[36] The rules on forum-shopping are designed to promote and facilitate the orderly administration of justice and "should not be interpreted with such absolute literalness as to subve1i its own ultimate and legitimate objective or the goal of all rules of procedure which is to achieve substantial justice as expeditiously as possible."[37]
	GR No. 194192 2015-06-16	DAVAO CITY WATER DISTRICT v. RODRIGO L. ARANJUEZ PEREZ, J.
In its Comment, DCWD defended the Orders on the basis of Section 6 of CSC Resolution No. 021316[21] which provides that the concerted activity like the participation of the officers and employees during the fun run wearing t-shirts with inscriptions was prohibited because it was done during office hours; Moreover, the act of Cagula in posting papers with grievances outside the designated areas was a clear violation of MC No. 33 in relation to 8 February 1996 Office Memorandum. It was submitted that due to Cagula's membership in the Board of Directors of NAMADACWAD, the other officers were solidarity responsible for his actions.[22]
	GR No. 201760 2013-09-16	LBL INDUSTRIES v. CITY OF LAPU-LAPU VELASCO JR., J.
The Court, in several cases, has recognized the sufficiency of a Secretary's Certificate as proof of authority for an individual named in it to represent a corporation in a suit.[13] In Vicar International Construction, Inc. v. FEB Leasing and Finance Corp.,[14] We held:In Shipside Incorporated v. Court of Appeals, the petitioner had not attached any proof that its resident manager was authorized to sign the Verification and the non-forum shopping Certification, as a consequence of which the Petition was dismissed by the Court of Appeals. Subsequent to the dismissal, however, the petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, to which was already attached a Certificate issued by its board secretary who stated that, prior to the filing of the Petition, the resident manager had been authorized by the board of directors to file the Petition.
	GR No. 181277 2013-07-03	SWEDISH MATCH PHILIPPINES v. TREASURER OF CITY OF MANILA SERENO, C.J.
The power of a corporation to sue and be sued is lodged in the board of directors, which exercises its corporate powers.[14] It necessarily follows that "an individual corporate officer cannot solely exercise any corporate power pertaining to the corporation without authority from the board of directors."[15] Thus, physical acts of the corporation, 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.[16]
	GR No. 168208 2012-06-13	VIVIAN T. RAMIREZ v. MAR FISHING CO. SERENO, J.
However, this Court has recognized that the merit of a case is a special circumstance or compelling reason that justifies the relaxation of the rule requiring verification and certification of non-forum shopping.[30] In order to fully resolve the issue, it is thus necessary to determine whether technical rules were brushed aside at the expense of substantial justice.[31] This Court will then delve into the issue on (1) the solidary liability of Mar Fishing and Miramar to pay petitioners' monetary claims and (2) the reckoning period for the award of back wages.
	GR No. 168313 2010-10-06	BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. CA BRION, J.
BPI maintains in the present petition that it attached a verification and certificate of non-forum shopping to its complaint. Contesting the CA's interpretation of Shipside v. Court of Appeals,[41] it argues that the Supreme Court actually excused Shipside's belated submission of its Secretary's Certificate and held that it substantially complied with the rule requiring the submission of a verification and certificate of non-forum shopping as it did, in fact, make a submission. From this starting point, it now asks the Court to excuse its belated submission.[42]
	GR No. 161838 2010-04-07	REPUBLIC v. COALBRINE INTERNATIONAL PHILIPPINES PERALTA, J.
A corporation has no power, except those expressly conferred on it by the Corporation Code and those that are implied or incidental to its existence. In turn, a corporation exercises said powers through its board of directors and/or its duly authorized officers and agents.[10] Thus, it has been observed that the power of a corporation to sue and be sued in any court is lodged with the board of directors that exercises its corporate powers. In turn, physical acts of the corporation, 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.[11]
	GR No. 161368 2010-04-05	MEDISERV v. CA VILLARAMA, JR., J.
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 October 21, 1999, the time petitioner's Resident Manager Balbin filed the petition, there was no proof attached thereto that Balbin was authorized to sign the verification and non-forum shopping certification therein, as a consequence of which the petition was dismissed by the Court of Appeals. However, subsequent to such dismissal, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, attaching to said motion a certificate issued by its board secretary stating that on October 11, 1999, or ten days prior to the filing of the petition, Balbin had been authorized by petitioner's board of directors to file said petition.
	GR No. 164244 2009-07-30	NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY v. REYNALDO MAGAT CARPIO, J.
Under Section 2, Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, "every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest." To qualify a person to be a real party in interest in whose name an action must be prosecuted, he must appear to be the present real owner of the right sought to be enforced.[12] A real party in interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to remedies under the suit. [13]
	GR No. 184081 2009-06-19	GLOBAL HOLIDAY OWNERSHIP CORPORATION v. METROPOLITAN BANK YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Given the merits of the case, we are not at this point inclined to dismiss the petition, on respondent's argument that there was a defective verification and certification accompanying the present petition. We can simply require petitioner to submit proof of its President Pedro P. Diomampo's authority to sign the petition in its behalf, but we no longer see the need to do the same at this late stage. Under the parties' mortgage agreement, Global was formerly named Diomampo Industries, Inc.;[22] certainly, we have been equally less rigid in previous cases.[23]
	GR No. 152923 2009-01-19	NORTHEASTERN COLLEGE TEACHERS v. NORTHEASTERN COLLEGE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
To qualify a person to be a real party in interest in whose name an action must be prosecuted, he must appear to be the present real holder of the right sought to be enforced.[76] "Interest" within the meaning of the rule means material interest, an interest in essence to be affected by the judgment as distinguished from mere interest in the question involved, or a mere incidental interest. By real interest is meant a present substantial interest, as distinguished from a mere expentancy or a future, contingent, subordinate or consequential interest.[77]
	GR No. 170625 2008-10-17	BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. CA TINGA, J.
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.[40]
	GR No. 150896 2008-08-28	PUREFOODS CORPORATION v. NAGKAKAISANG SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA NG PUREFOODS RANK-AND-FILE 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]
	GR No. 166904 2008-08-11	MEDIAN CONTAINER CORPORATION v. METROPOLITAN BANK CARPIO MORALES, J.
Verification is a formal, not jurisdictional, requirement.[23] It is simply intended to secure an assurance that the allegations in the pleading are true and correct, and that the pleading is filed in good faith.[24] That explains why a court may order the correction of the pleading if verification is lacking, or act on the pleading although it is not verified, if the attending circumstances are such that strict compliance with the rules may be dispensed with in order to serve the ends of justice.[25]
	GR No. 164940 2007-11-28	VARORIENT SHIPPING CO. v. NLRC TINGA, J,
The Court is not unmindful of the necessity for a certification of non-forum shopping in filing petitions for certiorari as this is required under Section 1, Rule 65, in relation to Section 3, Rule 46 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. When the petitioner is a corporation, the certification should obviously be executed by a natural person to whom the power to execute such certification has been validly conferred by the corporate board of directors and/or duly authorized officers and agents. Generally, the petition is subject to dismissal if a certification was submitted unaccompanied by proof of the signatory's authority.[19]
	GR NOS. 169295-96 2006-11-20	REMINGTON INDUSTRIAL SALES CORPORATION v. ERLINDA CASTANEDA PUNO, J.
This Court has consistently held that the requirement of verification is formal, and not jurisdictional. Such requirement is merely a condition affecting the form of the pleading, non-compliance with which does not necessarily render it fatally defective. Verification is simply intended to secure an assurance that the allegations in the pleading are true and correct and not the product of the imagination or a matter of speculation, and that the pleading is filed in good faith.[19] The court may order the correction of the pleading if verification is lacking or act on the pleading although it is not verified, if the attending circumstances are such that strict compliance with the rules may be dispensed with in order that the ends of justice may thereby be served.[20]
	GR NO. 159674 2006-06-30	SAMUEL ESTRIBILLO v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In Shipside Incorporated v. Court of Appeals,[18] the authority of petitioner's resident manager to sign the certification against forum shopping was submitted to the Court of Appeals only after the latter dismissed the Petition. It turned out, in the Motion for Reconsideration, that he already had board authority ten days before the filing of the Petition. We ratiocinated therein that: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.
	GR NO. 135092 2006-05-04	PUROK BAGONG SILANG ASSOCIATION v. EVANGELINE S. YUIPCO CALLEJO, SR., J.
On the first issue, the rule is that all actions must be prosecuted and defended by the real parties-in-interest and in the name of the real party-in-interest.[21] The party whose legal right has been invaded or infringed or who sustained an injury is the only one who can maintain the action;[22] or the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit. He must appear to be the present owner of the right sought to be enforced.[23] An association has the legal personality to represent its members and the outcome of the case will affect their vital interests.[24] Thus, in Executive Secretary v. Court of Appeals,[25] the Court ruled that the modern view is that an association has standing to complain an injury to its members. This view focuses the legal identity of an association with that of its members. An association has standing to file suit for its members despite its lack of direct interest if its members are affected by the action; similarly, an organization has standing to assert the concern of its constituents.
	GR NO. 159653 2006-01-25	LDP MARKETING v. ERLINDA DYOLDE MONTER CARPIO MORALES, J.
Utter disregard of the rules cannot justly be rationalized by harking on the policy of liberal construction.[16] (Emphasis supplied) In the more recent case of Shipside Incorporated v. Court of Appeals[17] cited by herein petitioners, the therein petitioner Shipside Incorporated filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with the Court of Appeals which, however, dismissed it, citing absence of proof that the one who signed the Verification and Certification of non-forum shopping, its Manager Lorenzo Balbin, Jr., was authorized to institute the petition for and in behalf of the petitioner. Shipside Incorporated filed a Motion for Reconsideration to which it attached a certificate issued by its board secretary stating that ten days before the filing of the petition, its board of directors authorized Balbin to file it. The Court of Appeals just the same denied the Motion for Reconsideration. In granting petitioner Shipside Incorporated's Petition for Certiorari, this Court held:It is undisputed that on October 21, 1999, the time petitioner's Resident Manager Balbin filed the petition, there was no proof attached thereto that Balbin was authorized to sign the verification and non-forum shopping certification therein, as a consequence of which the petition was dismissed by the Court of Appeals. However, subsequent to such dismissal, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, attaching to said motion a certificate issued by its board secretary stating that on October 11, 1999, or ten days prior to the filing of the petition, Balbin had been authorized by petitioner's board of directors to file said petition.
	GR NO. 143088 2006-01-24	PHILIPPINE AIRLINES v. FLIGHT ATTENDANTS AZCUNA, J.
Thus, only individuals vested with authority by a valid board resolution may sign the certificate of non-forum shopping in behalf of a corporation. In addition, the Court has required that proof of said authority must be attached. Failure to provide a certificate of non-forum shopping is sufficient ground to dismiss the petition. Likewise, the petition is subject to dismissal if a certification was submitted unaccompanied by proof of the signatory's authority.[4]
	GR NO. 155279 2005-10-11	MICRO SALES OPERATION NETWORK v. NLRC QUISUMBING, J.
The requirement regarding verification of a pleading is not jurisdictional. Such requirement is simply a condition affecting the form of the pleading, non-compliance with which does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective.[12]
	GR NO. 155343 2005-09-02	BENGUET CORPORATION v. CORDILLERA CARABALLO MISSION QUISUMBING, J.
This Court has consistently held that the requirement regarding verification of a pleading is formal, not jurisdictional.[9] Such requirement is a condition affecting the form of the pleading; non-compliance with this requirement does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective. Verification is simply intended to secure an assurance that the allegations in the pleading are true and correct and not the product of the imagination or a matter of speculation, and that the pleading is filed in good faith.[10] Further, the purpose of the aforesaid certification is to prohibit and penalize the evils of forum-shopping.[11] Considering that later on Mr. Bolaño's authority to sign the verification and certificate of non-forum shopping was ratified[12] by the board, there is no circumvention of these objectives.
	GR NO. 144755 2005-06-08	SPS. ELISEO F. ESTARES AND ROSENDA P. ESTARES v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Concerning the verification, we note that Rosenda stated therein that she caused the preparation of the "foregoing Pre-Trial Brief" but we consider the same as a slight error and honest mistake in the preparation of the petition. In any event, the purpose of requiring a verification is simply to secure an assurance that the allegations of the petition have been made in good faith; or are true and correct, not merely speculative.[25] This requirement is simply a condition affecting the form of pleadings, and noncompliance therewith does not necessarily render it fatally defective.[26] Indeed, verification is only a formal, not a jurisdictional, requirement.[27]
	GR No. 152542 & 155472 2004-07-08	MONFORT HERMANOS AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. ANTONIO B. MONFORT III YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
A corporation has no power except those expressly conferred on it by the Corporation Code and those that are implied or incidental to its existence. In turn, a corporation exercises said powers through its board of directors and/or its duly authorized officers and agents. Thus, it has been observed that the power of a corporation to sue and be sued in any court is lodged with the board of directors that exercises its corporate powers. In turn, physical acts of the corporation, 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.[18]
	GR No. 149634 2004-07-06	LORETA TORRES v. SPECIALIZED PACKAGING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PANGANIBAN, J.
"A pleading required to be verified which contains a verification based on 'information and belief,' or upon 'knowledge, information and belief,' or lacks a proper verification, shall be treated as an unsigned pleading." (Italics supplied) The purpose of requiring a verification is to secure an assurance that the allegations of the petition have been made in good faith; or are true and correct, not merely speculative.[18] This requirement is simply a condition affecting the form of pleadings, and noncompliance therewith does not necessarily render it fatally defective.[19] Indeed, verification is only a formal, not a jurisdictional, requirement.[20]
	GR No. 146608 2003-10-23	SPS. CONSTANTE FIRME AND AZUCENA E. FIRME v. BUKAL ENTERPRISES CARPIO, J.
The power of a corporation to sue and be sued is exercised by the board of directors. "The physical acts of the corporation, 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."[56]
	GR No. 144881 2003-10-16	BETTY T. CHUA v. ABSOLUTE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION CARPIO, J.
The petition filed before the Court of Appeals contained a certificate of non-forum shopping executed by counsel and not by the authorized officer of Absolute. However, the subsequent filing of an affidavit of non-forum shopping signed by the corporate director cured this defect. In Maricalum Mining Corp. v. National Labor Relations Commission,[23] the Court held that a slight delay in the filing of an affidavit of non-forum shopping should not defeat the action. A liberal interpretation of the rules is more in keeping with the objective to "secure a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding." As held in Loyola v. Court of Appeals,[24] substantial compliance is sufficient. While submission of the certificate of non-forum shopping is mandatory, nonetheless we must not interpret the requirement too literally to defeat the objective of preventing the undesirable practice of forum shopping.[25] 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.[26]