G.R. No. 128550 ; March 16, 2000
Digital Microwave Corporation, petitioner, vs. Court of Appeals and Asian High Technology Corporation, respondents.

FACTS

Asian High Technology Corporation filed a complaint for a sum of money and damages against Digital Microwave Corporation (DMC) before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig. DMC moved to dismiss the complaint, but the trial court denied the motion and a subsequent motion for reconsideration. DMC then filed a special civil action for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the trial court.
The Court of Appeals dismissed DMC’s petition outright due to non-compliance with Revised Circular No. 28-91, as amended. The circular mandates that a petition must be accompanied by a sworn certification against forum shopping signed by the petitioner itself. In this case, the certification attached to DMC’s petition was signed only by its counsel, not by a corporate officer. DMC moved for reconsideration and submitted a new certification duly signed by a senior officer, but the appellate court denied the motion, citing the absence of any compelling reason for the initial failure to comply.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for certiorari due to petitioner’s failure to submit a certification against forum shopping signed by a corporate officer, as required by Revised Circular No. 28-91.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals was correct. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, emphasizing the mandatory and strict nature of the rule on forum shopping certifications. The Court rejected DMC’s argument that its counsel, by virtue of a presumed authority to represent the client, could validly execute the certification on behalf of the corporation. The rationale for requiring the petitioner itself to sign is that only the petitioner has actual knowledge of whether it has commenced similar actions in other courts or agencies; counsel may be unaware of other proceedings.
The Court further clarified that a corporation, as a juridical entity, can comply with this requirement through its duly authorized directors or officers who act on its behalf. DMC’s subsequent submission of a properly signed certification after the dismissal did not cure the initial defect, as no reasonable explanation or compelling reason for the initial omission was provided. Citing Spouses Ortiz v. Court of Appeals, the Court ruled that the requirement demands strict compliance, and liberal construction cannot be invoked to justify utter disregard of the rules. The dismissal of the petition for certiorari was thus proper.