Development Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns two lots owned by Bibiana Guerra de Azarcon and her late husband, Inocentes Azarcon. They mortgaged these lots to the Philippine National Bank (PNB) to secure a loan. As they could not pay, a friend, Asuncion Calceta, offered to pay the PNB loan if the Azarcons would mortgage the lots to her. The Azarcons agreed, executing a simulated deed of sale in Calceta's favor. Calceta then obtained a P3,500,000.00 loan from the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) using the lots as collateral, paid the PNB, and subsequently defaulted on her DBP loan. This led to DBP initiating foreclosure proceedings on the lots. 2. Procedural History: The Azarcon heirs filed a civil case against DBP and its deputized special sheriff, Atty. Nilo Galorport, seeking annulment of the contract and titles, and an injunction. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted a preliminary injunction, enjoining the auction sale. DBP and Atty. Galorport appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) via a petition for certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the RTC. The CA dismissed their petition due to a fatally defective certification against forum shopping, as it was signed only by Atty. Demosthenes Demecillo, DBP's Branch Manager, and not by Atty. Galorport. The CA also denied their motion for reconsideration, finding that Atty. Demecillo had not sufficiently proven his authority to represent DBP. 3. The Petition: The Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) and Atty. Nilo Galorport, through a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seek to overturn the CA's dismissal of their certiorari petition. They argue that the CA gravely abused its discretion in dismissing their case. The core of their argument revolves around the certification against forum shopping, which was signed only by Atty. Demosthenes Demecillo, DBP's Branch Manager. Petitioners contend that Atty. Demecillo was authorized by DBP Board Resolution No. 0192 to sign such certifications and that his signature, along with the verification, should have sufficed. They also argue that Atty. Galorport's signature was not necessary as he and DBP shared a common interest. The Supreme Court, however, found the certification fatally defective for not being signed by both petitioners and for DBP failing to submit proof of Atty. Demecillo's authority to file the petition.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for certiorari. Whether the certification against forum shopping was fatally defective.
Ruling
The Court held that the Court of Appeals did not gravely abuse its discretion in issuing the assailed twin resolutions. The petition for certiorari was dismissed due to a fatally defective certification against forum shopping.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for certiorari: The Court ruled that the Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The primary issue revolved around the procedural defect in the certification against forum shopping. The petitioners before the Court of Appeals were DBP and Atty. Galorport. The certification was signed only by Atty. Demosthenes Demecillo, the DBP Branch Manager. The private respondents argued that Atty. Demecillo was not authorized by DBP to represent it in filing the petition for certiorari, rendering his signature without legal significance. The Court found that while petitioners submitted a Board Resolution authorizing Branch Heads to sign verifications and certifications, they failed to attach a certified true copy of this resolution to their petition before the CA. This omission was deemed fatal, as courts cannot take judicial notice of corporate board resolutions or an officer's authority. Therefore, the failure to submit proof of Atty. Demecillo's authority was a sufficient ground for dismissal. On Whether the certification against forum shopping was fatally defective: The Court affirmed that the certification against forum shopping was indeed fatally defective. Atty. Galorport admitted he did not sign the certification, arguing that Atty. Demecillo's signature, representing DBP, was sufficient due to their common interest. The Court rejected this contention, explaining that DBP was sued as a mortgagee, while Atty. Galorport was impleaded as the deputized special sheriff who conducted the foreclosure. Their interests were not the same, and thus, both should have signed the certification. The Court reiterated its consistent ruling that the certification must be signed by the principal parties, and for a corporation, by a specifically authorized representative with personal knowledge of the facts. The failure of both petitioners to properly execute the certification against forum shopping warranted the dismissal of their petition for certiorari.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari may be dismissed if the certification against forum shopping is not signed by all the principal parties or their duly authorized representatives, and the failure to submit proof of authority of the signatory is a fatal defect.