GR 166279; (June, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 166279 ; June 30, 2006
PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINES, INC., Petitioner, vs. ALADDIN TRANSIT CORP., ANACLETO VILLARICO and ESTEBAN ZIPAGAN, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Philippine Rabbit and respondent Aladdin Transit are public utility bus operators. On March 18, 1996, a Philippine Rabbit bus collided with two Aladdin Transit buses on the North Luzon Expressway. Philippine Rabbit filed a complaint for damages against Aladdin Transit and its drivers. Attached to the complaint was a verification and certification of non-forum shopping signed only by Philippine Rabbit’s counsel, not by a corporate officer. Aladdin Transit moved to dismiss based on this defective certification, but the trial court denied the motion, ruling the counsel acted as the corporation’s agent. After Aladdin Transit was declared in default for non-appearance at pre-trial, the trial court rendered a decision holding Aladdin Transit and one driver solidarily liable.
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision. It found the complaint fatally defective due to the improper certification of non-forum shopping, which was signed by counsel without proof of authority. The appellate court also noted inconsistencies in the evidence regarding the accident. Philippine Rabbit’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the complaint due to a defective certification of non-forum shopping.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. The certification of non-forum shopping is a mandatory requirement under Supreme Court Circular No. 04-94 (now embodied in the Rules of Court). For a corporation, the certification must be signed by a duly authorized representative, not merely by its counsel. The counsel is not a party to the case and cannot personally attest to the truth of the allegations regarding forum shopping. The rule requires the party-plaintiff itself to make the certification.
In this case, the certification was signed only by Atty. Elmer Dela Rosa, counsel for Philippine Rabbit, without any accompanying board resolution or similar document authorizing him to execute such a certification on behalf of the corporation. This constitutes a fatal defect. While procedural rules may be relaxed in the interest of justice, such liberality requires a satisfactory explanation for the lapse and subsequent compliance. Philippine Rabbit failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the defective certification and did not subsequently submit proof of authority even after the defect was raised. Therefore, the dismissal of the complaint was proper. The petition was denied for these procedural grounds, making a discussion on the substantive merits of the damage claims unnecessary.