Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines v. Aladdin Transit
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. (Philippine Rabbit) and Aladdin Transit Corporation (Aladdin Transit) are competing public utility bus companies. On March 18, 1996, a vehicular accident occurred on the North Luzon Expressway involving a Philippine Rabbit bus (Bus 676) and two Aladdin Transit buses (Bus 451 and Bus 886). The accident resulted in damage to all three buses, with Bus 886 sustaining the most severe damage. Philippine Rabbit sought to recover the cost of repairs for Bus 676, unrealized income during its repair period, and attorney's fees from Aladdin Transit and its drivers. Procedural History: Philippine Rabbit filed a complaint for damages against Aladdin Transit and its drivers with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City. Aladdin Transit moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the certification of non-forum shopping was defective as it was signed by the counsel and not the party. The RTC denied the motion, finding the counsel's signature binding on the corporation. Aladdin Transit filed an Answer, asserting the Philippine Rabbit driver's fault and its own exercise of due diligence. Aladdin Transit was later declared in default for failing to appear at pre-trial, and the RTC rendered judgment in favor of Philippine Rabbit. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC's decision, finding the certification of non-forum shopping defective and the evidence presented by Philippine Rabbit contradictory. The Petition: Philippine Rabbit filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, seeking to overturn the Court of Appeals' decision. The petition, however, was filed without a verification and a certification against forum shopping, which are mandatory requirements under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Philippine Rabbit's counsel later filed a motion to admit the belatedly submitted verification and certification, attributing the omission to inadvertence. The Supreme Court noted that the verification and certification were signed by Ramon M. Nisce, who claimed to be the Chairman of the Board and Treasurer, but failed to provide proof of his authority to sign on behalf of the corporation. The Court found this defect similar to the one in the original complaint before the RTC, which had also been signed by counsel without proper authorization. Ultimately, the Supreme Court denied the petition due to the failure to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements and the lack of a satisfactory explanation for the lapses.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for review on certiorari is dismissible for failure to comply with the mandatory requirements of verification and certification against forum shopping. Whether the explanation of excusable negligence for the failure to comply with the verification and certification requirements is satisfactory.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The Court of Appeals Decision reversing and setting aside the RTC decision is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Issue of Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping: The Court reiterated that Sections 1 and 4 of Rule 45 of the Rules of Court mandate that a petition for review on certiorari must be verified and contain a sworn certification against forum shopping. These requirements are mandatory, and failure to comply is sufficient ground for dismissal. Revised Circular No. 28-9 further elaborates on the contents of the certification. The requirement applies to corporations as well, as the rules make no distinction between natural and juridical persons. The Court noted that the petition filed by Philippine Rabbit lacked both the verification and the certificate of non-forum shopping. This procedural defect was similar to the one raised before the trial court, which the Court of Appeals correctly found to be a ground for dismissal. The Court emphasized that while cases should be decided on their merits, this is contingent upon parties endeavoring to explain their lapses and subsequently complying with the requirements. On the Issue of Excusable Negligence: The Court found that petitioner failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for its lapses in filing the petition without the required verification and certification. Even after the defect was pointed out, Philippine Rabbit failed to submit the requisite documents to prove the authority of Ramon M. Nisce to sign the certification on behalf of the corporation. The Court distinguished between a natural person and a juridical entity like Philippine Rabbit, stating that the latter can only act through authorized officers or agents. Nisce's claim of being Chairman of the Board and Treasurer, and his awareness of the company's cases, were not substantiated by proof of his authority to execute the certification. Therefore, the alleged excusable negligence was not satisfactorily explained, and the lapses were not cured.
Main Doctrine
A petition filed with the Supreme Court must be verified and accompanied by a certificate of non-forum shopping. Failure to comply with these mandatory requirements is sufficient ground for dismissal, and such lapses are generally not considered excusable negligence unless satisfactorily explained and subsequently complied with.