Digital Microwave Corporation v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Asian High Technology Corp. filed a complaint against Digital Microwave Corporation for a sum of money and damages before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City. The trial court denied petitioner's motion to dismiss and subsequent motion for reconsideration. 2. Procedural History: Petitioner Digital Microwave Corporation initiated a special civil action for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the trial court. The Court of Appeals dismissed this petition for failure to comply with Revised Circular No. 28-91, as amended by Administrative Circular No. 04-94, which requires a sworn certification against forum shopping signed by the petitioner. Petitioner's initial certification was signed by counsel, and a subsequent motion for reconsideration with a certification signed by a senior officer was denied, with the appellate court stating no compelling reason was shown for the initial non-compliance. 3. The Petition: Aggrieved by the Court of Appeals' dismissal, petitioner Digital Microwave Corporation seeks reversal of the ruling before this Court. Petitioner contends that for a corporate entity, the certification against forum shopping can be signed by an authorized representative, including counsel, who has knowledge of the facts. The Court, however, questions this reasoning, emphasizing that the certification requires personal knowledge of the party, which a corporation can provide through a duly authorized officer or director, and that substantial compliance is insufficient without reasonable cause for failure to personally sign.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for failure to comply with the requirement of a sworn certification against forum shopping signed by the petitioner himself. Whether a corporation, as a juridical entity, can comply with the requirement of personal knowledge for the certification against forum shopping.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The ruling of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of compliance with the certification against forum shopping: The Court reiterated that the requirement for a sworn certification against forum shopping, as mandated by Revised Circular No. 28-91 and extended by Administrative Circular No. 04-94, is a strict procedural rule. The purpose of the certification is to prevent forum shopping, and it requires personal knowledge of the facts by the petitioner. The Court emphasized that even counsel may not be aware of all actions initiated by the petitioner in different courts or agencies. Therefore, the certification must be executed by the petitioner himself or, in the case of a corporation, by a duly authorized officer or director who possesses the requisite knowledge. The Court found that petitioner failed to adequately explain its initial failure to have the certification signed by one of its officers, and there was no compelling reason to disregard strict compliance. On the issue of corporate compliance: The Court disagreed with petitioner's contention that a corporation, being a juridical entity, cannot comply with the personal knowledge requirement. It reasoned that corporations act through their directors and officers, who are capable of acquiring and attesting to the necessary knowledge. The Court found it incomprehensible why petitioner did not initially comply by having the certification signed by an authorized officer, as it did after the petition was dismissed. The Court stressed that substantial compliance is insufficient when strict observance is required, and utter disregard of the rules cannot be justified by liberal construction.
Main Doctrine
A corporation, as a juridical entity, must comply with the requirement of personal knowledge for the certification against forum shopping, which can be executed by a duly authorized officer or director. Failure to comply strictly with the rules on certification against forum shopping, absent any compelling reason or justifiable cause, warrants the dismissal of the petition.