DIGEST/ ANA CHRISTEL ANGELES/ MEDISERV, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS (Special Former 13th Division) and LANDHEIGHTS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, respondents.(2010)

MEDISERV, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS (Special Former 13th Division) and LANDHEIGHTS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, respondents.(2010)

FACTS:

Mediserv Inc. executed a real estate mortgage in favour of China Banking Corporation as a security for a loan. Mediserv defaulted on its obligation with Chinabank in which the real estate mortgage was foreclosed. At the public auction sale, private respondent Landheights Development Corporation was the highest bidder. After the consolidation of title in favor of Landheights, the latter filed a verified complaint for ejectment against Mediserv before the MeTC of Manila. The court ruled in favour of Landheights.

On appeal, the RTC reversed and set aside the decision.

The petition for review filed by Landheights was initially dismissed by the CA on the ground that written authority to sign the verification and certification on non-forum shopping were not attached to the petition.

Landheights filed a Motion for reconsideration and subsequently submitted a Secretary’s Certificate stating that the Board of Directors affirms the authority to file the Petition for Review. The CA reinstated the petition for review in which it granted Landheights a new period of ten (10) days within which to correct and rectify the deficiencies in the petition.

On April 1, 2003, Mediserv filed a motion for reconsideration and invoked Section  5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, which provides that failure to comply with the requirements on certification against forum shopping shall not be curable by mere amendment of the complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for dismissal of the case. Petitioner thus asserts that the appellate court acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction in reinstating the petition for review filed by respondent corporation.

ISSUE:

Whether the CA gravely abused its discretion and acted without and/or in excess of jurisdiction in reinstating the petition.

RULING:

No. The CA did not abuse its discretion in reinstating the petition.

Under Rule 46, Section 3, paragraph 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, petitions for certiorari must be verified and accompanied by a sworn certification of non-forum shopping.

The Court is aware of the necessity for a certification of non-forum shopping in filing petitions for certiorari as this is required under Section 1, Rule 65, in relation to Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. When the petitioner is a corporation, the certification should obviously be executed by a natural person to whom the power to execute such certification has been validly conferred by the corporate board of directors and/or duly authorized officers and agents. Generally, the petition is subject to dismissal if a certification was submitted unaccompanied by proof of the signatory’s authority.

However, we must make a distinction between non-compliance with the requirements for certificate of non-forum shopping and verification and substantial compliance with the requirements as provided in the Rules of Court. The Court has allowed the belated filing of the certification on the justification that such act constitutes substantial compliance. In Roadway Express, Inc. v. CA, the Court allowed the filing of the certification fourteen (14) days before the dismissal of the petition. In Uy v. Land Bank of the Philippines, the Court reinstated a petition on the ground of substantial compliance even though the verification and certification were submitted only after the petition had already been originally dismissed. In Havtor Management Phils. Inc. v. NLRC, we acknowledged substantial compliance when the lacking secretary’s certificate was submitted by the petitioners as an attachment to the motion for reconsideration seeking reversal of the original decision dismissing the petition for its earlier failure to submit such requirement.

In the present case, Landheights rectified its failure to submit proof of Mr. Dickson Tan’s authority to sign the verification/certification on non-forum shopping on its behalf when the required document was subsequently submitted to the Court of Appeals. The admission of these documents, and consequently, the reinstatement of the petition itself, is in line with the cases we have cited. In such circumstances, we deem it more in accord with substantive justice that the case be decided on the merits.

It is settled that liberal construction of the rules may be invoked in situations where there may be some excusable formal deficiency or error in a pleading, provided that the same does not subvert the essence of the proceeding and connotes at least a reasonable attempt at compliance with the rules. After all, rules of procedure are not to be applied in a very rigid, technical sense; they are used only to help secure substantial justice.

The instant petition was filed under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, which requires the existence of grave abuse of discretion. Grave abuse of discretion exists where an act of a court or tribunal is performed with a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility. No such grave abuse of discretion exists in this case to warrant issuance of the extraordinary writ of certiorari.