San Miguel Bukid Homeowners Assn. v. Mandaluyong
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The San Miguel Bukid Homeowners Association, Inc., representing urban poor dwellers, entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with the City of Mandaluyong for a housing project. The City subsequently contracted with A.F. Calma General Construction to build row houses and medium-rise buildings for the association's members. Construction began in June 1995 but halted in June 1996, with the project remaining incomplete after the stipulated 540-day period elapsed in November 1996. The association's attempts to obtain project updates from the City were unsuccessful. Procedural History: The Homeowners Association filed a complaint for specific performance and damages against the City of Mandaluyong and A.F. Calma General Construction before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The City argued that the agreement was abrogated due to the association's failure to secure a loan and that the association lacked standing. A.F. Calma General Construction did not file an answer. The RTC denied the association's motion to declare the City in default, finding no obstinate refusal or neglect. The association's motion for reconsideration was also denied. Subsequently, the association filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). The Petition: The Court of Appeals dismissed the association's petition for certiorari due to the alleged lack of authorization of the signatory for the Verification/Certification of Non-Forum Shopping. The CA also denied the motion for reconsideration. The Homeowners Association now seeks certiorari from the Supreme Court, arguing that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in holding that the representative was not duly authorized, in applying a specific ruling against them, and in denying their motion for reconsideration. They contend that the CA should have accepted the subsequent ratification of authority and that the dismissal was improper.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in holding that the representative of the petitioner who signed the Verification/Certification of Non-Forum Shopping did not appear to be duly authorized, and whether the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 was the proper remedy. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in applying the ruling in BA Savings Bank v. Sia against the petitioner and dismissing the petition for certiorari. Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion for reconsideration when it held that the lack of certification against forum shopping is generally not curable by its subsequent submission.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit. The Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated April 16, 2002, and May 14, 2002, are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the remedy and the authority to sign the Verification/Certification of Non-Forum Shopping: The Court held that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not the proper remedy to assail a final order of dismissal issued by the Court of Appeals, as the appropriate remedy is an appeal via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. The Court found that the Board of Directors' Resolution only authorized Mr. Evelio D. Barata to initiate, sign, file, and prosecute the Complaint for specific performance before the RTC, not a petition for certiorari before the CA. Therefore, the resolution did not grant Mr. Barata the authority to sign the Verification/Certification of Non-Forum Shopping for the petition for certiorari. The CA correctly dismissed the petition on this ground. On the application of BA Savings Bank v. Sia: The provided text does not contain specific reasoning on the application of BA Savings Bank v. Sia. Therefore, no corresponding ratio can be provided based on the input. On the curative effect of subsequent compliance: The Court ruled that the subsequent submission of a Secretary's Certificate confirming and ratifying Mr. Barata's authority to sign for the petition for certiorari did not cure the initial defect. The petition was filed prior to the ratification date. The Court reiterated that certiorari is an extraordinary remedy, and parties must strictly observe the rules. Subsequent compliance does not automatically excuse non-compliance in the first instance, especially in the absence of special circumstances or compelling reasons.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not the proper remedy to assail a final order of dismissal issued by the Court of Appeals; the proper remedy is an appeal via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. Furthermore, the authority to sign a verification and certification of non-forum shopping must be granted by the board of directors for the specific action being filed, and subsequent ratification of an unauthorized act does not cure the defect if the original act was performed without authority.