GR 159422; (March, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 159422 ; March 28, 2008
Chinese Young Men’s Christian Association of the Philippine Islands (Manila Downtown YMCA) vs. Remington Steel Corporation
FACTS
Remington Steel Corporation leased several units from YMCA. After the lease for a second-floor unit (963) expired, YMCA sought to eject Remington, leading to consolidated cases for fixing of lease period and unlawful detainer. Separately, Remington surrendered possession of two ground-floor units (964 & 966) in 1998, a fact acknowledged by YMCA in a “No Objection” filing, and the related consignation case was closed. However, Remington kept these ground-floor units padlocked, retaining the keys, to use them as a passageway to the second-floor unit, citing a lack of alternative access.
YMCA subsequently filed two new unlawful detainer cases to evict Remington from these same ground-floor units, arguing Remington’s padlocking and failure to surrender keys constituted continued possession. The Metropolitan Trial Courts ruled for YMCA, but the Regional Trial Courts, on appeal, reversed and dismissed the complaints. YMCA then filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals. The CA dismissed the petition outright due to a defective Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping, as the signatory, YMCA’s General Manager, failed to attach proof of his authority to sign for the corporation.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed YMCA’s petition for failure to comply with the requirement for a proper Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed that the certification of non-forum shopping must be signed by the petitioner itself, and if the petitioner is a corporation, by a duly authorized representative. The authority of such a representative must be evidenced by a board resolution or similar document attached to the petition. Here, YMCA’s General Manager signed the certification without submitting any proof that he was authorized by the corporation’s board to do so. This omission is fatal.
The rule on certification is not a mere technicality but is essential to prevent forum shopping and ensure that the party invoking the court’s jurisdiction has undertaken a sincere commitment to abide by the proceedings. Strict compliance is required. The Court emphasized that the responsibility to attach the proof of authority lies with the corporate petitioner. YMCA’s failure in this regard warranted the dismissal of its petition for review. The subsequent submission of the required board resolution in a motion for reconsideration before the CA did not cure the defect, as the court’s jurisdiction was never validly invoked due to the incomplete and insufficient initiatory pleading.