G.R. No. 173181 March 3, 2010
HUTAMA-RSEA/SUPERMAX PHILS., J.V., Petitioner, vs. KCD BUILDERS CORPORATION, represented by its President CELSO C. DIOKNO, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent KCD Builders Corporation (KCD) filed a complaint for sum of money against petitioner Hutama-RSEA/Supermax Phils., J.V. (Hutama) and Charles H.C. Yang (Yang) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati. The cause of action arose from a Notice to Proceed dated November 10, 2000, where Hutama, as principal contractor for a project at Philips Semiconductors Phils. Inc., contracted KCD as a sub-contractor. After project completion, KCD submitted a final billing. A joint evaluation by the parties’ representatives agreed that Hutama’s total obligation to KCD was ₱2,967,164.71. Despite demand, Hutama failed to pay.
Summons was served on February 8, 2002. Counsel for Hutama and Yang filed an Entry of Appearance and Motion for Extension to file a responsive pleading, granted until March 16, 2002. They failed to file by the deadline. On April 11, 2002, KCD filed a Motion to Declare Defendant/s in Default. On April 23, 2002, Yang filed a Motion to Dismiss, and Hutama filed an Urgent Motion to Admit Attached Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim. The RTC granted the motion to declare defendants in default, noting the filings were late, and allowed KCD to present evidence ex-parte. Hutama’s motion to set aside the order of default was denied after it failed to appear at the hearing.
During ex-parte presentation, KCD’s evidence established the contract, the joint evaluation agreeing on the amount of ₱2,967,164.71, and Hutama’s failure to pay. The RTC rendered a decision on February 20, 2003, ordering Hutama and Yang to pay KCD the said amount with interest, attorney’s fees, and costs.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) modified the RTC decision by dismissing the complaint against Yang for lack of cause of action but affirmed it in all other respects. Hutama’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the decision of the RTC as to the liability of Hutama to KCD.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA decision. The Court held:
1. Hutama’s claim that KCD abandoned the project and owed it money involved a review of factual findings, which is not permissible in a Rule 45 petition that raises only questions of law. The factual findings of the RTC, affirmed by the CA, are binding. None of the exceptions to this rule were present. The evidence established that Hutama contracted KCD’s services, the project was completed, a joint evaluation agreed on the amount due, and Hutama refused to pay.
2. Hutama’s claim of a violation of its constitutional right to due process was without merit. The RTC acted within its discretion in issuing the order of default after Hutama failed to file an answer within the extended period. The RTC gave Hutama an opportunity to explain by setting its motion to set aside the order for hearing, but Hutama failed to appear. Its counsel’s excuse for the late filing (going to the province for Lent) was flimsy and deserved scant consideration.
3. Hutama’s challenge to the verification and certification of non-forum shopping signed by KCD’s president was unavailing. A pleading’s verification can be signed by a party’s representative who has personal knowledge of the facts. The certification of non-forum shopping can be signed by the petitioner or any principal party, not necessarily the plaintiff himself. The president of KCD, as a principal officer, was competent to execute the certification.