G.R. No. 162924; February 4, 2010
MID-PASIG LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. MARIO TABLANTE, doing business under the name and style ECRM ENTERPRISES; ROCKLAND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY; LAURIE LITAM; and MC HOME DEPOT, INC., Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Mid-Pasig Land Development Corporation is the registered owner of land in Pasig City. On December 6, 1999, it leased approximately one hectare to respondent Mario Tablante (ECRM Enterprises) for three months as a staging area for a fair. On March 6, 2000, the lease expiration date, Tablante assigned his rights to respondents Laurie Litam and/or Rockland Construction Company. Petitioner later discovered Tablante had executed a Contract of Lease with respondent MC Home Depot, Inc. on November 26, 1999 over the same land, where MC Home Depot built improvements and subleased stalls. After the lease expired, petitioner demanded respondents vacate. Respondent Rockland filed a case for Specific Performance (Civil Case No. 68213) to compel a new three-year lease. Petitioner then filed an unlawful detainer case (Civil Case No. 8788) in the MTC. The MTC dismissed the ejectment complaint, ruling the core issue was the right to exercise an option to renew the lease, a matter incapable of pecuniary estimation and within RTC jurisdiction, and ordered petitioner to pay attorney’s fees. The RTC affirmed. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The CA dismissed the petition on technical grounds: (1) the verification and certification against forum shopping was signed by the corporation’s General Manager, Antonio Merelos, without attaching a board resolution or secretary’s certificate authorizing him to sign; and (2) the petition lacked necessary documents per the rules. The CA denied the motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari on the technical ground that the verification and certification against forum shopping lacked a board resolution authorizing the General Manager to sign it.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for lack of pertinent documents.
3. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition, thereby upholding the RTC decision on the merits (regarding lease renewal, estoppel, valid occupation, and liability for attorney’s fees).

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition. The assailed CA Resolutions were REVERSED and SET ASIDE. However, the main case was considered CLOSED AND TERMINATED as the issue of the right of possession had been rendered moot and academic.
1. On the first issue, the Court ruled the CA erred. Citing Cagayan Valley Drug Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the Court held that a General Manager or Acting General Manager is among the corporate officials recognized as authorized to sign the verification and certification against forum shopping without need of a board resolution, as they are in a position to verify the truthfulness of the allegations. The failure to attach the secretary’s certificate was not fatal. Furthermore, the requisite board resolution was subsequently submitted to the CA. Dismissal on this technical ground was unwarranted; rules of procedure should not be applied rigidly to override substantial justice.
2. On the second issue, the Court found petitioner had substantially complied with the rules by subsequently submitting the pertinent documents. Dismissal on this technicality was improper.
3. On the third issue, while a remand would normally be ordered, the Court found it unnecessary due to supervening events that rendered the core issue of possession moot and academic. Petitioner alleged in its Memorandum that the claimed lease period had expired by 2003. Respondent Rockland stated it was no longer in possession, as possession had been awarded to Pasig Printing Corporation by the RTC in a separate case (SCA No. 2673). Respondent MC Home Depot, Inc. confirmed this, stating the three-year period had expired in 2003 and that it was in possession based on a Memorandum of Agreement with Pasig Printing Corporation, which had been adjudged to have the right of possession (jus possessionis). Thus, the issue of the right of possession in the ejectment case was moot.