G.R. No. 157195. April 22, 2005
VICAR INTERNATIONAL CONSTRUCTION, INC., and CARMELITA V. LIM, Petitioners, vs. FEB LEASING AND FINANCE CORPORATION (now BPI LEASING CORPORATION), Respondents.

FACTS

This case originated from disputes over loan agreements and equipment leases between Vicar International Construction, Inc. and FEB Leasing. Vicar obtained loans from FEB to purchase heavy equipment, executing Deeds of Absolute Sale with a lease-back provision. Despite making substantial payments and the extrajudicial foreclosure of collateral lots, FEB claimed a large outstanding balance and filed a complaint for sum of money and replevin. The Regional Trial Court issued orders adverse to Vicar, including quashing a counterbond and denying a motion to dismiss.
Vicar filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals to challenge these orders. However, the CA dismissed the petition outright because the Verification and Certification against forum shopping was executed by Carmelita V. Lim, the corporation’s President, without an attached board resolution or secretary’s certificate proving her authority to sign on behalf of the corporate petitioner. Vicar promptly filed an Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration, attaching the required Secretary’s Certificate, but the CA denied it, ruling the belated submission did not cure the initial defect.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in summarily dismissing the Petition for Certiorari due to the initial failure to attach proof of Carmelita Lim’s authority to sign the verification and certification.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court reversed the CA’s dismissal. The Court emphasized that procedural rules are tools to promote, not obstruct, substantial justice. While the requirement for a proper verification and certification is mandatory, its non-compliance is not always fatal. The defect was excusable under the circumstances. Vicar’s counsel candidly admitted an inadvertent oversight in the rush of preparation. More importantly, the verification itself contained an explicit statement that Lim was duly authorized, and the existence of a supporting board resolution was immediately substantiated by its submission in the Omnibus Motion.
The immediate submission of the Secretary’s Certificate constituted substantial compliance. The policy of the law is to afford every party the fullest opportunity to establish the merits of their case. Dismissing the petition based on a technicality, when the authority was real and promptly proven, would elevate form over substance. The defect did not go to the jurisdiction of the court nor indicate a deliberate attempt to mislead. Therefore, the CA should have admitted the attached certificate and resolved the case on its merits. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for proper proceedings.