ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 143062. November 20, 2000]

MANILA MANDARIN HOTEL, INC., vs. ALITA D. R. HERRERA

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated NOV 20 2000.

G.R. No. 143062 (Manila Mandarin Hotel, Inc., vs. Alita D. R. Herrera.)

In the Court's resolution of 03 July 2000, the petition for review on certiorari was denied for failure of petitioner to show that a reversible error had been committed by the Court of Appeals. In the resolution of 13 September 2000, petitioner's motion for reconsideration was granted, the Court's resolution of 03 July 2000 was set aside, the petition was reinstated and respondent was required to comment thereon. The comment of respondent was noted in the Court's resolution of 13 November 2000.

The pivotal issue in this case is whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for failure of petitioner to comply with the rule on Certification of Non-Forum Shopping, the petition having been signed by Josefina Arriola, Human Resources Director of Manila Mandarin Hotel, Inc. petitioner argues that Arriola's authority flows from her being the Human Resources Director of the hotel; that there was nothing in the Rules of Court which would require any separate document to confirm the authority of the person signing the verification and certification of non-forum shopping; that Arriola was authorized to sign the verification and certification of non-forum shopping and being the Human Resources Director, she was "charged to attend to matters concerning labor-management relations, as well as the general supervision and control of the Hotel's employees insofar as ensuring the latter's compliance with the Hotel's policies and regulations, and imposing disciplinary sanctions in cases of violation;" and that Arriola was also "obliged to attend to the litigation and defense of cases being filed by the employees against the Hotel" and "when the Hotel appealed from the Labor Arbiter to the NLRC, it was Ms. Arriola who verified said appeal." Petitioner noted that Arriola's authority was not questioned either by respondent or by the Commission.

Section 5, Rule 7, of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure requires the certification against forum shopping thusly:

"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 spending, he shall report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.

"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 of 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. (n)"

In resolving the motion for reconsideration filed by the hotel, the appellate court stated:

"A Motion for Reconsideration dated March 23, 2000 was filed by petitioner through counsel praying that the Resolution promulgated by this Court last February 28, 2000 be reconsidered and set aside and instead issue another one giving due course to the petition by arguing that paragraph 3, Section 3, Rule 46 in relation to Section 1, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure did not explicitly require that in case the petitioner is a corporation that the person swearing in the Certification of Non-Forum Shopping shall attach a Board Resolution or authority showing that he or she is duly authorized to sign for and in behalf of the petitioner.

"This Court agrees with the petitioner that is so but how can this Court really know whether said person is really authorized or not if none of the said authority is attached or incorporated to the petition considering that a corporation can only act through its Board of Directors which exercises its corporate powers unless it legally delegate some of this powers (Premium Marble Resources, Inc., vs. CA, et al. and Printline Corporation vs. CA, 264 SCRA 17).

"While it is true and correct that 'this rule shall be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of any action and proceeding' (Section 6, Rule 1, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended), yet, the relaxation in the application of the rules of procedure was never intended to forge a bastion for erring litigants to violate the rules with impunity. The liberality in the application and interpretation of the rules applies only in proper cases and for justifiable causes and circumstances. While it is likewise true that litigation is not a game of technicalities, it is equally true that each case must be prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed procedure to insure an orderly and speedy administration of justice (Garbo vs. Court of Appeals, 258 SCRA 159)." (Rollo, pp. 44-45.)

In Loquias, et al. vs. Office of the Ombudsman, et al. (G.R. No. 139396, promulgated on 15 August 2000), this Court said:

"(S)ubstantial compliance will not suffice in a matter involving strict observance by the rules. The attestation contained in the certification on non-forum shopping requires personal knowledge by the party who executed the same. Petitioners must show reasonable cause for failure to personally sign the certification. Utter disregard of the rules cannot justly be rationalized by harking on the policy of liberal construction."

The Court thus finds no reversible error on the part of the Court of Appeals in dismissing the petition when it ruled:

"x x x considering that a reading of the Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping shows that it was signed by a certain Josefina Arriola, who claims to be the Human Resources Director of the petitioner, but nowhere in the petition is the authority attached thereto showing that she is authorized to sign for and in behalf of the petitioner corporation." (Rollo, p. 42.)

Considering the foregoing, and not being a trier of facts, the Court must desist from itself reviewing the factual findings of the National Labor Relations Commission.

WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is DENIED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE