ChanRobles Virtual law Library

G.R. No. 153831. September 2, 2002

PROCTER AND GAMBLE PHILIPPINES, INC. vs. HONORABLE BENJAMIN D. TURGANO, AS PRESIDING JUDGE, RTC OF LAOAG CITY , BRANCH 15, et al.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court 2 SEP 2002 :

G.R. No. 153831. (Procter and Gamble Philippines, Inc. vs. Honorable Benjamin D. Turgano, as Presiding Judge, RTC of Laoag City, Branch 15 and William S. Felix, doing business under the name of L.C. Pioneer Sales).

In a resolution dated November 6, 2000, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for certiorari of Procter and Gamble Philippines, Inc. seeking to set aside the order, dated August 17, 2000, of the respondent court which earlier denied its motion to dismiss a civil action (Civil Case No. 11859-15) for specific performance, breach of contract, fraud, unlawful interference of contract, and damages filed against it. The petition was dismissed on the ground that the certification of non-forum shopping attached to it was signed and sworn to by the senior counsel of the petitioner without any proof of his authority to act on its behalf.

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, attaching a certificate, dated October 20, 2000, of the corporate secretary, Atty. Edmundo I. Imperial, that pursuant to the resolution of the Board of Directors of Procter and Gamble Phils., Inc., its Legal Department/Corporate Affairs was constituted as its attorneys-in-fact to represent it in all legal actions filed in its behalf and/or any suit that may be filed against it. For this purpose, petitioner submitted a Special Power of Attorney, dated October 21, 2000 , appointing Atty. Gafar E. Lutian, Senior Counsel of its Legal Department, to represent it in all cases involving one William S. Felix, including Civil Case No. 11859-15, which was the subject of a motion to dismiss before the lower court. As petitioner's motion was denied, the present petition for review on certiorari was filed.

Petitioner contends that the rules regarding certification of non-forum shopping do not require a board resolution authorizing a corporate officer to execute the certification against forum shopping. Petitioner further argues that the said requirement was not necessary since Atty. Lutian is an officer (Senior Counsel) of its Legal Department/Corporate Affairs and not a counsel of record.

The petition has no merit.

Under Rule 46, �3 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, the petitioner, not the counsel, is required to sign the certification of non-forum shopping. The reason for this is that the petitioner is in the best position to certify whether a similar action involving the same issues has previously been commenced in any other tribunal or agency. ^[1] cralaw The requirement makes no distinction whether petitioner is a natural or a juridical person. As has been pointed out, the requirement means that the certification should be signed "by a duly authorized director or officer of the corporation." ^[2] cralaw In this case, while the petition filed in the Court of Appeals contains a certification of non-forum shopping, the certification was signed only by Atty. Lutian without appending a copy of any board resolution authorizing him to file the said petition. Petitioner's subsequent compliance with the rule cannot cure its procedural lapse. A certification not originally attached to the petition or one signed by counsel only and not by the party himself constitutes a violation of the requirement warranting the dismissal of the complaint or petition. ^[3] cralaw Hence, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition filed before it and there is no cogent reason for this Court to rule otherwise.

WHEREFORE , the petition is DENIED for lack of showing that the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error.

Very truly yours,

TOMASITA B. MAGAY-DRIS

Clerk of Court

By:

(Sgd) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG

Asst. Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

^[1] cralaw Santos v. Couct of Appeals, G.R. No. 141947, July 5, 2001 .

^[2] cralaw Zulueta v. Asia Brewery, Inc., G.R. No. 138137, March 8, 2001 .

^[3] cralaw MC Engineering, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 142314, June 28, 2001 .

Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
2013

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011