GR 153653; (October, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 153653 ; October 2, 2009
SAN MIGUEL BUKID HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., represented by its PRESIDENT, MR. EVELIO BARATA, Petitioner, vs. THE CITY OF MANDALUYONG, represented by the HON. MAYOR BENJAMIN ABALOS, JR.; A.F. CALMA GENERAL CONSTRUCTION, represented by its President, ARMENGO F. CALMA, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner San Miguel Bukid Homeowners Association filed a complaint for specific performance and damages against respondents City of Mandaluyong and A.F. Calma General Construction. The complaint stemmed from a failed housing project under the City’s Land for the Landless Program, alleging that the City and Calma entered into a Contract Agreement for constructing houses for petitioner’s members, but Calma stopped work in 1996 without completing the project. The City filed an Answer, arguing the underlying Memorandum of Agreement had been abrogated and that petitioner lacked standing. Petitioner moved to declare the City in default, contending its Answer was invalid as it was signed by a private lawyer instead of the City Legal Officer as required by the Local Government Code. The Regional Trial Court denied the motion.
Petitioner elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari. The CA dismissed the petition outright because the Verification/Certification of Non-Forum Shopping attached thereto did not appear to have been signed by a duly authorized representative of the petitioner association. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, which included a Secretary’s Certificate of a Board Resolution confirming the signatory’s authority, was also denied.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for certiorari due to a defective Verification/Certification of Non-Forum Shopping.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the CA’s resolutions. The Court held that the proper remedy from the CA’s final order of dismissal was a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, not a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. Certiorari under Rule 65 is only available when there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Since an appeal via Rule 45 was available, the petition for certiorari was an improper remedy.
On the substantive procedural defect, the Court ruled that the mandatory requirement for a proper Certification of Non-Forum Shopping was not complied with at the time of filing the petition before the CA. The subsequent submission of a Secretary’s Certificate with the motion for reconsideration did not cure the initial fatal omission. The Court found no special circumstances or compelling reasons to excuse this non-compliance, as the authority of the signatory should have been demonstrated at the time of filing. Thus, the CA correctly dismissed the petition.