ChanRobles Virtual law Library

SECOND DIVISION

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated OCT 12 2005.

G.R. No. 160867 ( Bonifacio Nakpil vs. Manila Towers, Inc .)

G.R. No. 160886 ( Manila Towers, Inc. vs. Bonifacio Nakpil .)

In the Resolution dated March 1, 2004, the Court (First Division) denied the petition in G.R. No. 160886 (Manila Towers, Inc. v. Bonifacio Nakpil) due to insufficient or defective verification and certification against forum shopping. The petitioner therein filed a motion for reconsideration of the said resolution attaching therewith the Secretary's Certificate of the Board Resolution authorizing the petitioner company's President to sign the petition.

Meanwhile, the Court (Second Division) resolved to direct the consolidation of G.R. No. 160886 with G.R. No. 160867 (Bonifacio Nakpil v. Manila Towers, Inc.) in the Resolution dated September 21, 2005.

For a proper disposition of the case, the Court deems it more in accord with substantial justice to grant the petitioner's motion for reconsideration in G.R. No. 160886 and excuse the petition's procedural defect. The verification and certification against forum shopping was defective in that the President of petitioner MTI signed it without appending thereto an authorization from the Board of Directors of the corporation. The Court, however, has distinguished a case where there is a complete failure to attach a certification against forum shopping from one where only the proof of the authority of the person who signed the same is lacking. In the latter case, there is substantial compliance with the rules when the authorization is subsequently submitted, as in this case. Thus, in General Milling Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission ¹ , the Court held that:

... It would appear that the signatory of the certification was, in fact, duly authorized as so evidenced by a board resolution attached to petitioner's motion for reconsideration before the appellate court. It could thus be said that there was at least substantial compliance with, and that there was no attempt to ignore, the prescribed procedural requirements. ²

Other than this, the Court finds the verification and certification against forum shopping to be sufficient in form.

IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Motion for Reconsideration in G.R. No. 160886 is GRANTED and the Petition for Review is REINSTATED. The respondent therein is required to file his Comment on the petition within ten (10) days from notice thereof.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG

Clerk of Court