GR 152304; (November, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 152304 November 12, 2004
PHILIPPINE VALVE MFG. COMPANY and/or ENGR. RENE B. GALERA, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and TERESITA N. AN, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners Philippine Valve Manufacturing Company (PVMC) and its Vice-President, Engr. Rene B. Galera, were respondents in an illegal dismissal case filed by Teresita N. An. The Labor Arbiter found PVMC not guilty of illegal dismissal but, invoking social justice, ordered it to pay An severance pay for her ten years of service. Petitioners appealed to the NLRC, which affirmed the decision. Their motion for reconsideration was denied.
Petitioners subsequently filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) assailing the NLRC resolution. The CA dismissed the petition outright due to a defective certification against forum shopping. The verification and certification attached to the petition were signed only by petitioner Galera. The CA held that there was no showing Galera was authorized by his co-petitioner, PVMC, to represent it and sign the certification on its behalf.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for certiorari due to a defective certification against forum shopping signed by only one of the petitioners.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed that the rules on certification against forum shopping, under Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, apply to all juridical entities. Where there are two or more petitioners, a certification signed by only one is defective unless that signatory is duly authorized to represent the others and sign for them.
The Court rejected petitioners’ argument that PVMC, as a general partnership, was exempt from the strict requirement. Any juridical entity must act through a proper authorized officer in legal transactions. Here, Galera signed only for himself; there was no board resolution, secretary’s certificate, or similar document submitted to prove he was authorized by PVMC to file the petition and execute the certification on its behalf. The attestation in a certification requires personal knowledge of the facts stated, which Galera could not claim to possess regarding PVMC’s filing history.
Petitioners’ submission of an affidavit from a partner attesting to Galera’s authority, but only in their motion for reconsideration before the CA, did not cure the defect. The Court ruled that substantial compliance is insufficient; strict observance of the rule is required. Petitioners failed to show any compelling reason to justify relaxing the rule. Thus, the CA’s dismissal of the petition for non-compliance with procedural requirements was proper.