G.R. No. 150959 August 4, 2006
United Paragon Mining Corporation, Petitioner, vs. Court of Appeals, Atty. Murly P. Mendez and Cesario F. Ermita, Respondents.

FACTS

Cesario F. Ermita, a foreman of United Paragon Mining Corporation (UPMC), was dismissed on January 18, 1996, for allegedly inflicting bodily injuries on a co-employee and unlawfully possessing a deadly weapon. The dispute, unresolved through the grievance machinery, was submitted to voluntary arbitration. Voluntary Arbitrator Atty. Murly P. Mendez ruled that while procedural due process was observed, the dismissal was unjustified. The Arbitrator found the termination was based on a gross misapprehension of facts, noting the evidence was merely the uncorroborated statement of the alleged victim, which was contradicted by an amicable settlement between the parties indicating the incident was unintentional. The bolo in question was also found to have been used by Ermita’s son for chopping wood. Reinstatement with full backwages was ordered.
UPMC moved for reconsideration, arguing reinstatement was inappropriate as Ermita’s position was filled and relations were strained, offering separation pay instead. The Arbitrator denied the motion, emphasizing the dismissal’s factual baselessness did not justify averting reinstatement. UPMC then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which was dismissed for procedural defects in the verification and certification against forum shopping.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed UPMC’s petition for certiorari due to fatal procedural defects in the verification and certification against forum shopping.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed that the certification against forum shopping must be signed by the petitioner itself or its duly authorized representative. In this case, the certification was signed by Feliciano M. Daniel, UPMC’s Personnel Superintendent, without any proof of authority from the corporation’s board of directors. UPMC erroneously argued that the petition was a mere continuation of the arbitration proceedings where Daniel was impleaded, thus not requiring separate authorization.
The Court reiterated that a corporation exercises its powers through its board of directors. The act of filing a petition in court is a special corporate act requiring specific authorization. Daniel’s role as a respondent in the arbitration case did not automatically confer authority to act on behalf of the corporation in a separate judicial proceeding. UPMC failed to show any board resolution or similar proof authorizing Daniel to sign the certification. While procedural rules may be relaxed for substantial justice, UPMC provided no reasonable cause for its non-compliance and did not demonstrate that a dismissal would defeat justice. Consequently, the CA’s dismissal based on these procedural grounds was proper.