Pascual and Santos, Inc. vs. Members of the Tramo Wakas Neighborhood Association, Inc.

A corporation's subsequent submission of a secretary's certificate proving that its board of directors had authorized the signatories to the verification and certification of non-forum shopping prior to the filing of the petition justifies relaxation of procedural rules to allow the petition to be given due course, and the date of filing by registered mail is the date of mailing as shown by registry receipts and post office records, not the date stamped on the envelope received by the court.

Petitioner Pascual and Santos, Inc. and respondents, the members of the Tramo Wakas Neighborhood Association, Inc. represented by Dominga Magno, dispute ownership over three parcels of land situated in Barangay San Dionisio, Parañaque, Metro Manila, identified as Lot Nos. 4087, 4088, and 5003, Psu-118886, Cad. 229, with an aggregate area of 35,195 square meters. Respondents claim to have openly, peacefully, and continuously occupied the subject lots since 1957, while petitioner asserts ownership over the same properties. The dispute was originally lodged before the Presidential Action Center and subsequently referred to the Land Management Bureau for investigation and hearing.

Respondents, the members of the Tramo Wakas Neighborhood Association, Inc. represented by Dominga Magno, lodged a petition dated January 12, 1994 before the Presidential Action Center praying that ownership over three parcels of land situated in Barangay San Dionisio, Parañaque, Metro Manila — identified as Lot Nos. 4087, 4088, and 5003, Psu-118886, Cad. 229, with an aggregate area of 35,195 square meters — be awarded to them. They alleged that petitioner Pascual and Santos, Inc. claims ownership of the subject lots which they have openly, peacefully, and continuously occupied since 1957. The petition was referred to the Land Management Bureau, where it was docketed as LMB Case No. 2-96 for investigation and hearing.

By Decision of February 21, 1996, LMB Director Abelardo G. Palad, Jr. found for respondents, dismissing petitioner's claim over the subject lots and directing the individual members of the association, if qualified, to file appropriate public land applications over the land they actually possessed. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied by Order of June 26, 1996. Petitioner then appealed to the Office of the DENR Secretary, docketed as DENR Case No. 7816. By Decision of November 25, 1997, DENR Secretary Victor O. Ramos dismissed the appeal for lack of merit and affirmed in toto the LMB decision. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied by Order of May 18, 1998, prompting it to appeal to the Office of the President, docketed as O.P. Case No. 98-F-8459. The OP likewise dismissed the appeal for lack of merit by Decision of January 20, 2000, affirming in toto the DENR decision.

Petitioner received a copy of the OP's dismissal on February 1, 2000. On February 16, 2000, it filed a "Petition for Time" before the CA seeking an additional fifteen days, or until March 2, 2000, within which to file its petition for review. The CA granted the request by Resolution of February 21, 2000, giving petitioner a non-extendible period until March 2, 2000. Petitioner subsequently filed its Petition for Review dated March 2, 2000 with the CA. The verification and certification of non-forum shopping were signed by Estela Lombos and Anita Pascual, who alleged they were duly authorized representatives of petitioner corporation, but no proof of such authority was attached.

By Resolution of May 17, 2000, the CA dismissed the appeal on two grounds: the verification and certification of non-forum shopping was signed by persons who failed to show proof of authority to act on behalf of the corporation, and the petition was filed a day late, as indicated by the date stamped on the envelope containing the petition, which showed March 3, 2000. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration on June 14, 2000, attaching a Secretary's Certificate dated June 14, 2000 showing that petitioner's Board of Directors had approved a resolution on February 11, 2000 — prior to the filing of the petition — appointing Lombos and Pascual as duly authorized representatives to sign all papers and execute all documents necessary to prosecute the petition for review. The CA denied the motion for reconsideration by Resolution of August 23, 2000, holding that bare allegations of authority are insufficient and that the date stamped on the envelope must prevail absent proof of postal error.

• Authority of Signatories: Petitioner argued that there was no showing that Lombos and Pascual were not authorized to sign the verification and certification of non-forum shopping on its behalf, and submitted a Secretary's Certificate dated June 14, 2000 evidencing that its Board of Directors had authorized them on February 11, 2000, prior to the filing of the petition.
• Timeliness of Filing: Petitioner maintained that its petition was filed within the additional fifteen-day period granted by the CA, asserting that Registry Receipt Nos. 185-188 and an Affidavit of Service showed the petition was mailed on March 2, 2000, and that a postmaster's certification confirmed the mailing date, with the March 3, 2000 stamp on the envelope being attributable to dispatch delay rather than late filing.

• Authority of Signatories: Whether the persons who executed the verification and certification of non-forum shopping attached to petitioner's petition for review filed with the Court of Appeals were authorized to do so.
• Timeliness of Filing: Whether petitioner's petition for review was filed within the reglementary period.

• Authority of Signatories: Yes. The subsequent submission of a secretary's certificate proving that the board of directors had authorized the signatories prior to the filing of the petition justified relaxation of the rules to allow the petition to be given due course.
• Timeliness of Filing: Yes. Registry receipts, an affidavit of service, and a postmaster's certification established that the petition was mailed on March 2, 2000, within the reglementary period; the March 3, 2000 stamp on the envelope was explained by dispatch delay.

• Authority of Signatories: Section 6(d) of Rule 43 in relation to Section 2 of Rule 42 mandates that a petition for review contain a sworn certification against forum shopping. This requirement applies to corporations as well as natural persons, the Rules making no distinction between them. A corporation has no powers except those conferred by the Corporation Code and those implied or incidental to its existence; it exercises its powers through its board of directors and duly authorized officers and agents. Physical acts such as signing documents can be performed only by natural persons duly authorized by corporate by-laws or by a specific act of the board. While no proof of authority was attached to the petition when filed, petitioner subsequently submitted a secretary's certificate showing that the board had authorized Lombos and Pascual on February 11, 2000, prior to the filing. Citing Shipside Incorporated vs. Court of Appeals and related cases, the Court held that subsequent submission of proof of authority to act on behalf of a petitioner corporation justifies relaxation of the rules. The Court emphasized that while the requirement of the certificate of non-forum shopping is mandatory, it must not be interpreted so literally as to defeat the objective of preventing forum shopping.
• Timeliness of Filing: Under Sections 3 and 12 of Rule 13, the date of mailing as shown by the post office stamp on the envelope or the registry receipt is considered the date of filing. Registry Receipt Nos. 185-188 covering the envelopes bearing the copies of the petition sent to the CA indicated that the copies were filed by registered mail at the Domestic Airport Post Office on March 2, 2000. The Affidavit of Service filed by the person who did the mailing confirmed that seven copies were deposited in four separate sealed envelopes and mailed to the Clerk of Court of the CA on March 2, 2000. A Certification dated October 26, 2000 issued by DAPO Postmaster Cesar A. Felicitas confirmed that the registered mail matter was posted on March 2, 2000 but "dispatched to the CMEC on March 3, 2000 for proper disposition," explaining why the latter date was stamped on the envelope received by the CA. The Court held that strict adherence to rules of procedure must yield to considerations of equity and substantial justice where, as here, evidence shows the appeal was filed on time.

• Certification of Non-Forum Shopping for Corporations — The requirement that the petitioner sign the certificate of non-forum shopping applies even to corporations, as the Rules of Court make no distinction between natural and juridical persons. A corporation exercises its powers through its board of directors, and physical acts like signing documents can be performed only by natural persons duly authorized by corporate by-laws or by a specific act of the board. However, subsequent submission of proof of authority to sign on behalf of a corporation justifies relaxation of the rules to allow the petition to be given due course. The requirement, while mandatory, must not be interpreted too literally so as to defeat the objective of preventing forum shopping.

• Date of Filing by Registered Mail — Under Section 3 of Rule 13, the date of mailing as shown by the post office stamp on the envelope or the registry receipt is considered the date of filing. Where the date stamped on the envelope received by the court differs from the mailing date shown on the registry receipt, evidence such as an affidavit of service and a postmaster's certification can establish the actual mailing date and explain the discrepancy. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions may be rebutted by such evidence.

• Relaxation of Procedural Rules in the Interest of Justice — Strict adherence to rules of procedure must give way to considerations of equity and substantial justice where there is evidence showing that the appeal was filed on time. This principle applies alongside the doctrine that subsequent submission of proof of authority to act on behalf of a petitioner corporation justifies relaxation of procedural requirements.

• "The requirement that the petitioner should sign the certificate of non-forum shopping applies even to corporations, considering that the mandatory directives of the Rules of Court make no distinction between natural and juridical persons." — This passage establishes the rule that the non-forum shopping requirement binds corporations equally, a point frequently cited in subsequent jurisprudence on corporate compliance with procedural rules.

• "This Court has ruled that the subsequent submission of proof of authority to act on behalf of a petitioner corporation justifies the relaxation of the Rules for the purpose of allowing its petition to be given due course." — This states the controlling ratio decidendi on the authority-of-signatories issue: that belated proof of corporate authorization may cure an initially defective certification of non-forum shopping.

• "It must also be kept in mind that while the requirement of the certificate of non-forum shopping is mandatory, nonetheless the requirements must not be interpreted too literally and thus defeat the objective of preventing the undesirable practice of forum shopping." — This passage articulates the doctrinal balance between mandatory compliance and equitable relaxation, a formulation commonly invoked in later cases.

• "At all events, strict adherence to rules of procedure must give way to considerations of equity and substantial justice where, as in this case, there is evidence showing that the appeal was filed on time." — This states the principle governing the timeliness issue, anchoring the Court's refusal to enforce the date stamped on the envelope over documentary proof of timely mailing.

• Shipside Incorporated vs. Court of Appeals, 352 SCRA 334 (2001) — Controlling precedent followed. The Court relied on this case for the proposition that subsequent submission of a secretary's certificate attesting to the signatory's authority to file an action on behalf of a corporation justifies relaxation of the non-forum shopping requirement.
• Novelty Philippines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 411 SCRA 211 (2003) — Followed for the rule that subsequent submission of proof of authority to act on behalf of a petitioner corporation justifies relaxation of the rules.
• National Steel Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 388 SCRA 85 (2002) — Followed for the principle that a corporation exercises its powers through its board of directors and duly authorized officers and agents, and for the rule on subsequent submission of proof of authority.
• BA Savings Bank vs. Sia, 336 SCRA 484 (2000) — Followed for the principle that corporate powers are exercised through the board of directors and for the rule on subsequent submission of proof of authority.
• Firme vs. Bukal Enterprises and Development Corporation, 414 SCRA 190 (2003) — Cited for the principle that physical acts like the signing of documents can be performed only by natural persons duly authorized by corporate by-laws or by a specific act of the board.
• Zulueta vs. Asia Brewery, 354 SCRA 100 (2001) — Cited for the proposition that the requirement to sign the certificate of non-forum shopping applies to corporations as well as natural persons.
• South Villa Chinese Restaurant vs. NLRC, 250 SCRA 246 (1995) — Cited for the principle that strict adherence to rules of procedure must yield to equity and substantial justice where evidence shows timely filing.

• Section 6(d) of Rule 43 in relation to Section 2 of Rule 42, Rules of Court — Requires that a petition for review contain a sworn certification against forum shopping in which the petitioner attests that he has not commenced any other action involving the same issues. Applied to hold that this requirement binds corporations as well as natural persons.
• Section 7 of Rule 43, Rules of Court — Provides that failure of the petitioner to comply with the foregoing requirements regarding payment of fees, deposit for costs, proof of service, and contents and documents accompanying the petition shall be sufficient ground for dismissal. The CA invoked this provision to dismiss petitioner's appeal.
• Sections 3 and 12 of Rule 13, Rules of Court — Govern the manner of filing and proof of filing by registered mail. Section 3 provides that the date of mailing as shown by the post office stamp on the envelope or the registry receipt shall be considered the date of filing. Section 12 provides that filing by registered mail is proved by the registry receipt and by the affidavit of the person who did the mailing. Applied to establish that the petition was filed on March 2, 2000, the mailing date shown on the registry receipts and postmaster's certification.
• Sections 3, 4(d), 5, and 5(d) of Rule 45 in relation to Section 5(d) of Rule 56, Rules of Court — Govern the procedural requirements for petitions for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, including affidavit of service and submission of certified true copies of assailed resolutions. The Court initially denied the petition under these provisions before reinstating it upon satisfactory explanation.

Panganiban (Chairman), Sandoval-Gutierrez, and Garcia, JJ., concurred. Corona, J., was on leave.