GR 192615; (January, 2013) (Digest)
G.R. No. 192615 ; January 30, 2013
SPOUSES EUGENE L. LIM and CONSTANCIA LIM, Petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS-Mindanao Station, HON. FLORENCIA D. SEALANA-ABBU, Presiding Judge of Branch 20, Regional Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City, and The BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Respondents.
FACTS
Respondent Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) filed a complaint for collection of money against petitioners Spouses Lim. The verification and certification against forum shopping attached to the complaint was signed by Francisco R. Ramos, BPI’s Assistant Vice-President and Mindanao Region Lending Head. Years into the proceedings, petitioners filed a second motion to dismiss, arguing that Ramos lacked the authority to sign the verification and certification, as there was no showing of a specific board resolution authorizing him to file the suit for BPI.
In opposition, BPI submitted a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) executed by another authorized officer, Rosario Jurado-Benedicto, granting Ramos the authority to represent the bank, along with a Corporate Secretary’s Certificate showing Benedicto’s own authority to grant such SPA. The RTC denied the motion to dismiss, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals, which held that the belatedly submitted documents constituted substantial compliance with procedural rules.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the denial of the motion to dismiss, despite the alleged fatal defect in the verification and certification against forum shopping due to the signatory’s initial lack of express authority.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition, upholding the rulings of the lower courts. The Court clarified that a defect in a verification and certification against forum shopping, such as a question regarding the signatory’s authority, is not necessarily fatal and does not automatically warrant the dismissal of the case. The defect can be cured by subsequent compliance, especially when the submission of the requisite authority, though belated, is made and there exists a compelling reason to apply the principle of substantial compliance.
The Court found that BPI’s submission of the SPA and Corporate Secretary’s Certificate, which established the chain of authority granting Ramos the power to act for the bank, sufficiently cured the initial procedural lapse. Moreover, Ramos, as an Assistant Vice-President, occupied a sufficiently high corporate position to be presumed knowledgeable about the bank’s affairs. The Court emphasized that rules of procedure are tools to facilitate justice, not to hinder it. Dismissing the case on a purely technical ground, after the authority had been satisfactorily established and considering the advanced stage of the proceedings, would subvert substantial justice. The petitioners were also deemed to have waived the issue by raising it only after actively participating in the case for nearly a decade.