Fuentebella v. Castro
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Darlica Castro engaged the services of petitioner Rolling Hills Memorial Park, Inc. for the interment of her deceased husband. During the burial, it was discovered that the vault's dimensions did not match the casket, causing a significant delay and embarrassment as the casket was exposed to mourners while the vault was prepared. The petitioners' employees used a spade to measure the casket. Despite a demand for explanation, the petitioners failed to respond or apologize, leading respondent Castro to file a complaint for damages against petitioner Art Fuentebella and Rolling Hills Memorial Park, Inc. before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Bacolod City. Procedural History: The initial complaint filed with the MTCC was withdrawn by the respondent after petitioners moved for its dismissal on jurisdictional grounds. Subsequently, respondent filed a similar complaint with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Negros Occidental. Petitioners again moved to dismiss, this time alleging a false certification against forum shopping due to the prior withdrawal of the MTCC case. The RTC denied the motion to dismiss, reasoning that the sanction for a false certification is not dismissal but indirect contempt. Petitioners then elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals (CA) via a petition for certiorari. The CA dismissed the petition, noting that the verification and certification against forum shopping were signed by an individual without clear authorization to represent all petitioners. A motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA, which found that while one petitioner's authority was later shown, the signatory was not authorized to act for the other petitioner. The Petition: Petitioners seek review of the Court of Appeals' resolutions dismissing their petition for certiorari. They argue that the CA erred in dismissing their petition based on a non-existent rule regarding the necessity of a board resolution or secretary's certificate for authorization to sign, and that the RTC gravely abused its discretion in refusing to dismiss the complaint for a false certification. The core of the petition revolves around the interpretation and application of Rule 7, Section 5 of the Rules of Court concerning the certification against forum shopping, specifically addressing the authority of the signatory and the consequence of omitting a withdrawn case from the certification.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals acted erroneously in dismissing outright the petition for certiorari on the basis of a non-existent rule. Whether the Regional Trial Court acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of, or in excess of, jurisdiction, in refusing to order the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of a false certification.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated September 27, 2001 and November 20, 2001 in CA-G.R. SP No. 66478 are AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that the Court of Appeals did not act erroneously in dismissing the petition for lack of proper authorization of the signatory. Rule 7, Section 5 of the Rules of Court mandates that the plaintiff or principal party shall execute the certification against forum shopping; if signed by another person, that person must be duly authorized. The Court explained that the requirement applies equally to juridical persons and natural persons and that corporate certifications should be signed by a duly authorized officer, a rule grounded in the principle that the principal party has actual knowledge of prior filings. Applying prior decisions such as Eslaban, Jr. v. Vda. de Onorio and Pet Plans, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, the Court emphasized that where multiple petitioners exist a single signatory must show authority to sign for the others because the certification requires personal knowledge which cannot be presumed. Given that Lourdes Pomperada failed, at the time of filing, to show authorization by board resolution or secretary's certificate and no special power of attorney for the co-petitioner was presented, the dismissal by the Court of Appeals for lack of authorization was sustained. On Issue 2: The Court held that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in declining to dismiss the complaint on the ground of a false certification. The Court interpreted Rule 7, Section 5 to mean that submission of a false certification constitutes indirect contempt of court and that the sanction provided is not necessarily automatic dismissal in every situation. The Court reasoned that an omission concerning a prior filing that does not amount to res judicata or litis pendentia is not fatal because the evils the rule seeks to prevent (actual forum shopping) are absent. Citing its prior jurisprudence, including Bernardo v. NLRC and Loquias v. Office of the Ombudsman, the Court explained that where the omitted prior action had been properly withdrawn for lack of jurisdiction, dismissal of the later action would not serve the rule's purpose. The RTC's view that false certification may give rise to contempt proceedings and administrative or criminal action was therefore consistent with Rule 7, Section 5 and did not amount to grave abuse of discretion.
Main Doctrine
The certification against forum shopping must be executed by the plaintiff or principal party; where signed on behalf of a corporation or co-petitioner, the signatory must have been duly authorized. A false certification or non-compliance constitutes indirect contempt, and failure to comply may be ground for dismissal, but omission of a prior withdrawn case that does not create res judicata or litis pendentia is not automatically fatal.