January 2007 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2007 > January 2007 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 146624 : January 15, 2007] NIKON INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, EULOGIO YUTINGCO AND WONG BEE KUAN, PETITIONERS, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, THE HON. SALVADOR S. TENSUAN, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MAKATI, BRANCH 146, AND SOLIDBANK CORPORATION, RESPONDENT. :
[G.R. No. 146624 : January 15, 2007]
NIKON INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, EULOGIO YUTINGCO AND WONG BEE KUAN, PETITIONERS, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, THE HON. SALVADOR S. TENSUAN, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MAKATI, BRANCH 146, AND SOLIDBANK CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the First Division of this Court dated January 15, 2007.
G.R. No. 146624 - (NIKON INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, EULOGIO YUTINGCO and WONG BEE KUAN, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, THE HON. SALVADOR S. TENSUAN, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MAKATI, BRANCH 146, and SOLIDBANK CORPORATION, respondent)
Before us is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, seeking to nullify the two Resolutions dated July 24, 2000 and November 14, 2000 issued by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 59321, entitled NIKON INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, EULOGIO YUTINGCO AND WONG BEE KUAN, petitioners, versus TENSUAN AND SOLIDBANK CORPORATION, respondents.
On September 21, 1999, SOLIDBANK CORPORATION (Solidbank), private respondent, filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 146, Makati City a complaint for sum of money in the amount of $4,252,336.22 (US Dollars) against Nikon Industrial Corporation, Eulogio Yutingco and Wong Bee Kuan, petitioners, docketed as Civil Case N o. 99-1711. The complaint alleges that respondent Solidbank granted petitioner Nikon an Omnibus Credit Line from which it made several availments. Petitioners Eulogio Yutingco and Wong Bee Kuan executed a Continuing Guaranty Agreement wherein they jointly and severally bound themselves to pay and assume any and all obligations incurred by Nikon under the Omnibus Credit Line. However, petitioners failed to comply with their respective obligations despite respondent bank's demands.
On December 21, 1999, petitioners filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, contending that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the case considering that Nikon is undergoing rehabilitation proceedings before the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Petitioners claim that in deference to the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the SEC over NIKON and its properties, the complaint should be dismissed.
In an Order dated February 8, 2000, the RTC denied petitioners' motion to dismiss since the ground relied upon by them is not one of those enumerated in Section 1, Rule 16 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.[1] Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied for lack of merit in an Order dated April 28, 2000.
Petitioners then filed with the Court of Appeals a Petition for Certiorari alleging that the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying their motion to dismiss the complaint.
In a Resolution dated July 24, 2000, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for certiorari on the ground that the certification against forum shopping was signed by petitioners' counsel, not by petitioners themselves. Forthwith, they filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied in a Resolution dated November 14, 2000.
Hence, the instant petition alleging that the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it dismissed the petition for certiorari in CA-G.R. No. 59321-SP.
The petition must fail.
Sec. 5, Rule 7 of the same Rules provides:
In Republic v. Carmel Development, Inc.,[2] we held:
Although petitioners subsequently attached to their motion for reconsideration a certification against forum shopping signed by them, however, they failed to satisfy the Court of Appeals or this Court that (1) the non-compliance with the requirement was not in any way attributable to them; (2) they exerted due diligence; and (3) there are highly justifiable and compelling reasons for the court to make a disposition in the interest of justice[5]
WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the petition for lack of merit.
The temporary restraining order issued by this Court on February 21, 2001 is ordered LIFTED.
The RTC of Makati City, Branch 146 is ordered to hear and decide Civil Case No. 99-1711 with dispatch.
G.R. No. 146624 - (NIKON INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, EULOGIO YUTINGCO and WONG BEE KUAN, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, THE HON. SALVADOR S. TENSUAN, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MAKATI, BRANCH 146, and SOLIDBANK CORPORATION, respondent)
Before us is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, seeking to nullify the two Resolutions dated July 24, 2000 and November 14, 2000 issued by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 59321, entitled NIKON INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, EULOGIO YUTINGCO AND WONG BEE KUAN, petitioners, versus TENSUAN AND SOLIDBANK CORPORATION, respondents.
On September 21, 1999, SOLIDBANK CORPORATION (Solidbank), private respondent, filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 146, Makati City a complaint for sum of money in the amount of $4,252,336.22 (US Dollars) against Nikon Industrial Corporation, Eulogio Yutingco and Wong Bee Kuan, petitioners, docketed as Civil Case N o. 99-1711. The complaint alleges that respondent Solidbank granted petitioner Nikon an Omnibus Credit Line from which it made several availments. Petitioners Eulogio Yutingco and Wong Bee Kuan executed a Continuing Guaranty Agreement wherein they jointly and severally bound themselves to pay and assume any and all obligations incurred by Nikon under the Omnibus Credit Line. However, petitioners failed to comply with their respective obligations despite respondent bank's demands.
On December 21, 1999, petitioners filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, contending that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the case considering that Nikon is undergoing rehabilitation proceedings before the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Petitioners claim that in deference to the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the SEC over NIKON and its properties, the complaint should be dismissed.
In an Order dated February 8, 2000, the RTC denied petitioners' motion to dismiss since the ground relied upon by them is not one of those enumerated in Section 1, Rule 16 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.[1] Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied for lack of merit in an Order dated April 28, 2000.
Petitioners then filed with the Court of Appeals a Petition for Certiorari alleging that the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying their motion to dismiss the complaint.
In a Resolution dated July 24, 2000, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for certiorari on the ground that the certification against forum shopping was signed by petitioners' counsel, not by petitioners themselves. Forthwith, they filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied in a Resolution dated November 14, 2000.
Hence, the instant petition alleging that the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it dismissed the petition for certiorari in CA-G.R. No. 59321-SP.
The petition must fail.
Sec. 5, Rule 7 of the same Rules provides:
SEC. 5. Certification against forum shopping. - The Plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath in the complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn certification annexed thereto and simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he has not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof; and (c) if he should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatroy pleading has been filed.As found by the Court of Appeals, the certification against forum shopping was signed, not by petitioners nor by anyone of them duly authorized by the other petitioners, but by Atty. Napoleon J. Poblador, their counsel. Thus, in dismissing the petition, the Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion.
Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be curable by mere amendment of the complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon motion and after hearing. The submission of a false certification or non-compliance with any of the undertakings therein shall constitute indirect contempt of court, without prejudice to the corresponding administrative and criminal actions. If the acts of the party or his counsel clearly constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping, the same shall be ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and shall constitute direct contempt, as well as a cause for administrative sanctions.
In Republic v. Carmel Development, Inc.,[2] we held:
The certification against forum shopping must be signed by the plaintiff or any of the principal parties and not by the attorney. It is mandatory that the certification by the petitioner himself and not by the attorney. A certification against forum shopping executed by counsel is cause for dismissal of the case.It bears emphasis that the reason why the certification against forum shopping should be personally signed by the petitioner is because it is he who can best certify whether or not he has initiated similar actions or proceedings in other courts or tribunals. The counsel of record may be unaware of such fact.[3] The attestation required in the certification requires personal knowledge of the party executing the same and by reason of such, substantial compliance will not suffice in a matter which involves strict observance to procedural rules.[4]
Although petitioners subsequently attached to their motion for reconsideration a certification against forum shopping signed by them, however, they failed to satisfy the Court of Appeals or this Court that (1) the non-compliance with the requirement was not in any way attributable to them; (2) they exerted due diligence; and (3) there are highly justifiable and compelling reasons for the court to make a disposition in the interest of justice[5]
WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the petition for lack of merit.
The temporary restraining order issued by this Court on February 21, 2001 is ordered LIFTED.
The RTC of Makati City, Branch 146 is ordered to hear and decide Civil Case No. 99-1711 with dispatch.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court
By:
EDGAR O. ARICHETA
Assistant Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court
By:
EDGAR O. ARICHETA
Assistant Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] SECTION 1. Grounds. - Within the time for but before filing the answer to the complaint or pleading asserting a claim, a motion to dismiss may be made on any of the following grounds:
(a) That the court has no jurisdiction over the person of the defending party;
(b) That the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim;
(c) That the venue is improperly laid;
(d) That the plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue;
(e) That there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause;
(f) That the cause of action is barred by a prior judgment or by the statute of limitations;
(g) That the pleading asserting the claim states no cause of action;
(h) That the claim or demand set forth in the plaintiff's pleading has been paid, waived, abandoned, or otherwise extinguished;
(i) That the claim on which the action is funded is unenforceable under the provisions of the statute of frauds; and
(j) That a condition precedent for filing the claim has not been complied with. (1a)
[2] G.R. No. 142572, February 20, 2002, 377 SCRA 459.
[3] G.R. No. 136449, August 22, 2002, 387 SCRA 655.
[4] G.R. No. 127393, December 4, 1998, 299 SCRA 708.
[5] Ibid., p. 713, citing Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 3-96.
