Pet Plans, Inc. and Adrian V. Ocampo vs. Court of Appeals

The certification against non-forum shopping must be signed by the petitioner himself, or in the case of a corporation, by its duly authorized representative, and failure of one of the petitioners to sign the verification and certification constitutes a defect warranting dismissal of the petition. The rule may be relaxed only upon showing of justifiable cause for the failure to personally sign and proof that outright dismissal would seriously impair the orderly administration of justice.

Petitioner PET PLANS, Incorporated is a company engaged in the business of selling educational, pension, and memorial plans, while co-petitioner Adrian V. Ocampo is its President. The case arose from a labor dispute initiated by Jaime M. Abad, a former employee of PET PLANS, who filed a complaint for illegal dismissal/demotion, damages, non-payment of basic wages, 13th month pay, and other monetary incentives against PET PLANS and Ocampo before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Regional Arbitration Branch No. 02, Tuguegarao, Cagayan.

Petitioner PET PLANS, Incorporated (PET PLANS) is a company engaged in the business of selling educational, pension, and memorial plans, while co-petitioner Adrian V. Ocampo (Ocampo) is its President. On January 16, 1995, PET PLANS employed Jaime M. Abad (Abad) as its Sales Operations Manager/District Manager, assigning him to its branch office in Aparri, Cagayan. In a letter dated June 10, 1999, petitioners informed Abad that, effective June 16, 1999, he was being reassigned as a Trust Manager, a position next lower in rank than the one he was then occupying, citing his failure to comply with the sales quota for the years 1998 and 1999, to recruit manpower, and to develop his agency.

On August 31, 1999, Abad filed a complaint with the NLRC, Regional Arbitration Branch No. 02, Tuguegarao, Cagayan, for illegal dismissal/demotion, damages, non-payment of basic wages, 13th month pay, and other monetary incentives against PET PLANS and Ocampo. On December 28, 1999, Executive Labor Arbiter Ricardo N. Olairez rendered a decision declaring Abad illegally dismissed and ordering petitioners jointly and severally to reinstate him to his former position without loss of seniority rights with full backwages and other benefits, unpaid basic wages including 13th month pay for 1996 to 1998, plus ten percent attorney's fees. Petitioners appealed to the NLRC, which on July 25, 2000, modified the decision by setting aside the award of backwages and affirming the decision in all other aspects. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied.

Aggrieved, petitioners filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals on January 24, 2001. A certain Rolando M. Espino signed the Verification and Certification attached to the petition as the duly authorized representative of petitioners, but no proof was presented to show that Espino was indeed the authorized representative. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on February 28, 2001, for defective or insufficient certification against forum shopping. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, attaching a Secretary's Certificate issued by Espino, who is also the corporate secretary of PET PLANS, indicating that on December 2, 2000, the Board of Directors authorized him to represent the corporation in all cases filed by or against it, and a certification issued by Ocampo, the President/CEO, attesting that Espino is the Corporate Secretary and authorized to represent the corporation. The Court of Appeals denied the motion for reconsideration on May 22, 2001.

• Mode of Review: Petitioners brought the case to the Supreme Court through a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, seeking to set aside the Court of Appeals' resolutions that dismissed their special civil action for certiorari, with no issue as to the merits of the case presented.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Petitioners claimed that the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it dismissed the petition on the ground of defective or insufficient certification against forum shopping, contending that it was not signed by the principal party or by petitioner himself as referred to by Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
• Substantial Compliance: Petitioners argued that the Court of Appeals gravely erred when it did not consider as substantial compliance with Section 5, Rule 7 the paragraph of the questioned certification which categorically stated that Rolando Espino is the duly authorized representative of the petitioners, an allegation made under oath.
• Secretary's Certificate: Petitioners argued that the Court of Appeals gravely erred when it ignored the Secretary's Certificate and President's Certification submitted by petitioners, attesting that Espino, being the first vice-president for legal affairs and corporate secretary, is authorized to represent PET PLANS in all cases whether filed by or against the company.

N/A — The decision does not recount arguments attributed to the Court of Appeals as respondent beyond its resolutions dismissing the petition for defective certification against forum shopping.

• Propriety of the Mode of Review: Whether the petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 was the proper mode of review for assailing the Court of Appeals' resolutions dismissing the special civil action for certiorari.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion in Dismissing the Certiorari Petition: Whether the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion when it dismissed petitioners' special civil action for certiorari on the ground that petitioners failed to comply with the provisions of the Rules of Court on verification and certificate of non-forum shopping.

• Propriety of the Mode of Review: The petition was treated as a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. There was nothing to appeal under Rule 45 from the questioned resolutions of the Court of Appeals, as there was no judgment on the merits of the issues raised before it.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion in Dismissing the Certiorari Petition: No. The Court of Appeals did not gravely abuse its discretion in dismissing the petition. The failure of Ocampo, a natural person and real party-in-interest, to sign the certificate of non-forum shopping, and the failure of PET PLANS to prove Espino's authority to sign for it, constituted fatal defects warranting dismissal.

• Propriety of the Mode of Review: The Court deemed it proper to pass upon the correctness of the mode of review availed of by petitioners. Since the petition sought to set aside the Court of Appeals' resolutions which outrightly dismissed the special civil action for certiorari, and no issue as to the merits of the case was presented, there was nothing to appeal under Rule 45. The petition merely sought to have the case remanded to the Court of Appeals for adjudication on the merits. Thus, the instant petition was considered a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion in Dismissing the Certiorari Petition: The Court acknowledged the policy of the judicial system to encourage full adjudication of the merits of an appeal and the liberality in the application of rules of procedure, but equally settled is the rule that strict compliance with procedural rules is enjoined to facilitate the orderly administration of justice, and liberality may not be invoked if it results in wanton disregard of the rules or needless delay. The Court found that the Board of Directors' resolution authorized Espino to represent only PET PLANS, not co-petitioner Ocampo. Nothing in the records indicated that Espino was clothed with special authority to represent Ocampo. Although Ocampo could ordinarily have been considered a nominal party as he was merely impleaded in his capacity as president of PET PLANS, the Labor Arbiter's decision made him jointly and solidarily liable with PET PLANS, making him a real party-in-interest whose stake had become distinct from those of the corporation. Thus, it was inevitable for him to sign the verification and certificate of non-forum shopping. The Court cited Loquias vs. Office of the Ombudsman, holding that failure of one of the petitioners to sign the verification and certificate against forum shopping constitutes a defect in the petition, which is a ground for dismissal. While this rule may be relaxed, petitioners must comply with two conditions: first, they must show justifiable cause for their failure to personally sign the certification; and second, they must prove that the outright dismissal of the petition would seriously impair the orderly administration of justice. The Court found that petitioners failed to prove the presence of these conditions. The dismissal by the Court of Appeals should have put petitioners on guard as to the basic procedural requirements, yet they still failed to substantially comply with the requirements by the failure of Ocampo to sign the certificate of non-forum shopping. PET PLANS also failed to submit proof that it authorized Espino to file the present petition or to sign the verification and certificate against forum shopping attached thereto, and Ocampo again failed to sign the certificate. The Court could not allow a party to gain an advantage from its flagrant disregard of the Rules, and found this fatal to petitioners' cause.

• Certification Against Non-Forum Shopping — The certificate of non-forum shopping must be signed by the petitioner himself, or in the case of a corporation, by its duly authorized representative. The reason for the requirement is that the petitioner himself, or the corporation's duly authorized representative, knows better than anyone else whether a separate case has been filed or pending which involves substantially the same issues. In this case, the Court applied the doctrine to require Ocampo, a natural person made a real party-in-interest by the Labor Arbiter's decision, to personally sign the certification, and to require PET PLANS to prove Espino's authority to sign on its behalf.

• Relaxation of Procedural Rules — While the Court has ruled that litigants should have the amplest opportunity for a proper and just disposition of their cause, free from the constraints of procedural technicalities, the liberality in the application of rules of procedure may not be invoked if it will result in the wanton disregard of the rules or cause needless delay in the administration of justice. The Court applied this doctrine in determining whether the dismissal of the certiorari petition was proper, balancing the policy of full adjudication on the merits against the requirement of strict compliance with procedural rules.

• Two Conditions for Relaxing the Signature Requirement — Failure of one of the petitioners to sign the verification and certificate against forum shopping constitutes a defect in the petition, which is a ground for dismissal. This rule may be relaxed only if petitioners comply with two conditions: first, petitioners must show justifiable cause for their failure to personally sign the certification; and second, they must prove that the outright dismissal of the petition would seriously impair the orderly administration of justice. The Court applied this test and found that petitioners failed to prove the presence of these conditions.

• "We have ruled time and again that litigants should have the amplest opportunity for a proper and just disposition of their cause – free, as much as possible, from the constraints of procedural technicalities." — This passage articulates the policy of the judicial system to encourage full adjudication of the merits of an appeal, which the Court balanced against the requirement of strict compliance with procedural rules.

• "The reason for such a requirement is that the petitioner himself, or in case of a corporation, its duly authorized representative, knows better than anyone else whether a separate case has been filed or pending which involves substantially the same issues." — This passage states the rationale for the requirement that the petitioner or its duly authorized representative sign the certificate of non-forum shopping, which is central to the Court's ruling.

• "While we have held in rulings subsequent to Loquias that this rule may be relaxed, petitioners must comply with two conditions: first, petitioners must show justifiable cause for their failure to personally sign the certification and; second, they must also be able to prove that the outright dismissal of the petition would seriously impair the orderly administration of justice." — This passage establishes the two-part test for relaxing the requirement of personal signature on the certificate of non-forum shopping, which the Court applied to find petitioners' non-compliance fatal.

• Novelty Philippines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 411 SCRA 211, 220 (2003) — Cited for the policy that litigants should have the amplest opportunity for a proper and just disposition of their cause, free from the constraints of procedural technicalities, and that the Court may reverse the dismissal of appeals grounded on non-compliance with procedural or formal requirements.
• El Reyno Homes, Inc. vs. Ong, 397 SCRA 563, 570 (2003) — Cited for the rule that strict compliance with procedural rules is enjoined to facilitate the orderly administration of justice, and that liberality may not be invoked if it results in wanton disregard of the rules or needless delay.
• Mariveles Shipyard Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, 415 SCRA 573, 584 (2003) — Cited for the proposition that obedience to the requirements of procedural rules is needed to expect fair results, and for the rule that in the case of corporations, the physical act of signing may be performed by specifically authorized individuals.
• Loquias vs. Office of the Ombudsman, 338 SCRA 62, 68 (2000) — Controlling precedent holding that failure of one of the petitioners to sign the verification and certificate against forum shopping constitutes a defect in the petition, which is a ground for dismissal.
• Spouses Ortiz vs. Court of Appeals, 299 SCRA 708, 712 (1998) — Cited for the two conditions that must be complied with to relax the rule on personal signature of the certification against forum shopping.
• Docena vs. Lapesura, 355 SCRA 658, 667 (2001) — Cited for the two conditions that must be complied with to relax the rule on personal signature of the certification against forum shopping.
• Torres vs. Specialized Packaging Development Corporation, G.R. No. 149634, July 6, 2004 — Cited for the two conditions that must be complied with to relax the rule on personal signature of the certification against forum shopping.
• Philippine Banking Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127469, January 15, 2004 — Cited for the proposition that a party cannot be allowed to gain an advantage from its flagrant disregard of the Rules.

• Section 1, Rule 65, Rules of Court — Provides for the petition for certiorari when any tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The Court applied this provision in treating the instant petition as a special civil action for certiorari.
• Section 3, Rule 46, Rules of Court — Requires the petitioner to submit together with the petition a sworn certification that he has not theretofore commenced any other action involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency, and provides that failure to comply with any of the requirements shall be sufficient ground for dismissal of the petition. The Court applied this provision in determining whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the certiorari petition.
• Section 5, Rule 7, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Referred to by the Court of Appeals in its resolution dismissing the petition for defective or insufficient certification against forum shopping, as the certification was not signed by the principal party or by petitioner himself. The Court discussed this provision in the context of the requirement that the petitioner sign the certificate of non-forum shopping.

Puno (Chairman), Callejo, Sr., Tinga, and Chico-Nazario, JJ., concurred.

N/A — No dissenting opinions were noted in the provided case text.