GR 148287; (November, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 148287 ; November 23, 2004
PET PLANS, INC. and ADRIAN V. OCAMPO, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner PET PLANS, INC., a seller of educational and memorial plans, and its President, Adrian V. Ocampo, were ordered by the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC to reinstate employee Jaime Abad and pay monetary awards after finding his demotion and subsequent dismissal illegal. Aggrieved, petitioners filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The CA dismissed the petition outright due to a defective certification against forum shopping. The certification was signed by Rolando Espino, who identified himself as the petitioners’ duly authorized representative, but the CA found it insufficient as it was not signed by the principal parties themselves. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration, which attached a Secretary’s Certificate authorizing Espino, was denied.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for certiorari on the ground of a defective certification against forum shopping.
RULING
No, the Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court clarified that the proper remedy from the CA’s dismissal was a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, not an appeal under Rule 45. On the substantive issue, the Court upheld the CA’s strict application of procedural rules on forum shopping. The certification must be signed by the petitioner himself or the principal party. For a corporation, the authority of the signatory must be duly evidenced. Here, the initial certification signed by Espino lacked the requisite proof of his authority to sign for the corporate petitioner and to bind co-petitioner Ocampo. While procedural rules may be relaxed under justifiable circumstances, petitioners failed to show such cause. The dismissal by the CA should have alerted them to rectify the defect, yet in their motion for reconsideration and even in the petition before the Supreme Court, they still failed to secure Ocampo’s signature on the certification. The Court cannot countenance a flagrant disregard of procedural rules designed to ensure orderly administration of justice. Thus, the CA’s dismissal was proper.