LDP Marketing, Inc. v. Monter
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Erlinda Dyolde Monter, a cashier at the Red Tag Convenience Store, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and related causes of action against petitioner LDP Marketing, Inc., the store's owner-operator, and its Vice-President, co-petitioner Ma. Lourdes Dela Peña. Procedural History: The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the respondent. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed this decision on appeal, with a modification to the attorney's fees. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied by the NLRC. Subsequently, they filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The appellate court dismissed this petition, citing the failure to attach a board resolution authorizing Ma. Lourdes Dela Peña to sign the verification and certification of non-forum shopping. A motion for reconsideration, to which a Secretary's Certificate was attached, was also denied. The Petition: Petitioners seek review on certiorari, arguing that the Court of Appeals erred in relying on Digital Microwave Corp. v. Court of Appeals and should have applied the more recent case of Shipside Incorporated v. Court of Appeals. They contend that the merits of the case and the interest of justice warrant giving due course to their petition, especially since they rectified the defect by attaching the board resolution to their motion for reconsideration before the appellate court. Their primary argument is that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that the respondent was illegally dismissed.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari for failure to attach proof of authority for the signatory of the verification/certification of non-forum shopping, considering the requirements of Rule 46, Section 3 of the Rules of Court and relevant jurisprudence. Whether the subsequent submission of a Secretary's Certificate constituted substantial compliance, warranting a relaxation of procedural rules in light of the merits of the case and the substantial interest of justice.
Ruling
The petition is impressed with merit. The Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated December 23, 2002 and August 20, 2003 are SET ASIDE. The records of the case are REMANDED to the Court of Appeals, which is DIRECTED to take appropriate action.
Ratio Decidendi
On the dismissal of the petition for certiorari for failure to attach proof of authority: The Court reiterated that under Rule 46, Section 3 of the Rules of Court, petitions for certiorari must be verified and accompanied by a sworn certification of non-forum shopping. While a corporation exercises its powers through its board of directors or authorized officers, physical acts like signing documents require specific authorization. The Court noted that in Digital Microwave Corp. v. Court of Appeals, the petition was dismissed because the certification was signed by counsel without adequate explanation or compelling reason for the failure to have it signed by an officer. However, the present case differs in that proof of authority was subsequently submitted. On whether the subsequent submission of a Secretary's Certificate constituted substantial compliance: The Court found the petition to be impressed with merit. It distinguished the present case from Digital Microwave Corp., noting that in Shipside Incorporated v. Court of Appeals, the Court allowed the belated filing of a certification against forum shopping when proof of authority was attached to the motion for reconsideration. The Court held that the merits of the case and the substantial interest of justice can be considered special circumstances or compelling reasons justifying the relaxation of the rule. In this case, the petitioner corporation rectified its failure by attaching the necessary document to its motion for reconsideration before the appellate court, demonstrating substantial compliance.
Main Doctrine
A corporation exercises its powers through its board of directors and/or duly authorized officers and agents. Physical acts, like signing documents, can only be performed by natural persons authorized by corporate by-laws or a specific board resolution. However, the failure to attach proof of authority for the signatory of a verification/certification of non-forum shopping may be rectified by submitting such proof in a motion for reconsideration, especially when the merits of the case and the interest of justice warrant it, constituting substantial compliance.