San Miguel Bukid Homeowners Association vs. City of Mandaluyong

A board resolution authorizing a corporate officer to file a complaint for specific performance does not constitute authority to file a subsequent petition for certiorari assailing interlocutory orders in that case, as certiorari is a special civil action that is separate and distinct from the original proceedings; consequently, a corporate officer signing a certification against forum shopping for such petition must be specifically authorized by the board to file that particular action, and subsequent ratification of authority after filing does not cure the defect absent special circumstances or compelling reasons.

The case arose from a housing project dispute where an association of urban poor dwellers sought to compel the City of Mandaluyong and a contractor to complete construction of row houses under a government land program. When construction stalled, the association initiated legal action, leading to procedural disputes regarding the proper representation of the local government unit and the validity of the association's subsequent certiorari petition before the Court of Appeals.

• Petitioner San Miguel Bukid Homeowners Association, Inc. (formerly Bukid Neighborhood Landless Association) is an association of urban poor dwellers in San Miguel Bukid Compound, Plainview, Mandaluyong City.
• Pursuant to the City's Land for the Landless Program, petitioner and the City entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) whereby the City purchased lots and transferred them to petitioner with a first real estate mortgage in favor of the City.
• The City and A.F. Calma General Construction entered into a Contract Agreement for Calma to construct row houses and medium-rise buildings on the lots within 540 calendar days for the benefit of petitioner's members.
• Construction began in June 1995 but stopped in June 1996; the 540-day period elapsed in November 1996 without completion of the houses.
• Petitioner filed a Complaint for specific performance and damages against the City and Calma before the RTC of Mandaluyong City.
• The City filed an Answer through private counsel, not through the Office of the City Legal Officer.
• Petitioner filed a Motion to Declare Defendant in Default, arguing that the Answer was a "mere scrap of paper" as it was not signed by the Office of the City Legal Officer as required by Section 248 of the Local Government Code.
• The RTC denied the motion, ruling that default applies only in cases of clear obstinate refusal or inordinate neglect in complying with court orders.
• Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, attaching a Certificate of Board Resolution dated November 7, 1999 authorizing President Evelio Barata to "initiate, sign, file and prosecute the Complaint [for specific performance]."
• The CA dismissed the petition, noting that the person who signed the Verification/Certification of Non-Forum Shopping did not appear duly authorized.
• Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration attaching a Secretary's Certificate showing a Board Resolution dated April 7, 2002 (after the petition was filed on March 26, 2002) confirming and ratifying Barata's authority to sign all necessary papers for the certiorari petition.
• The CA denied the motion, holding that lack of certification against forum shopping is generally not curable by subsequent submission.

• The representative who signed the Verification/Certification of Non-Forum Shopping was duly authorized by the petitioner corporation's Board of Directors, as evidenced by the Board Resolution dated November 7, 1999.
• The Court of Appeals erred in applying the ruling in BA Savings Bank v. Sia and dismissed the petition for certiorari.
• The Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the Motion for Reconsideration because what was submitted was not merely a certification against forum shopping but a Secretary's Certificate of a Board Resolution confirming and ratifying the authority of the representative, which should cure the defect.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy to assail the CA Resolutions dismissing the petition, or whether appeal under Rule 45 is the correct remedy.
  • Whether the subsequent submission of a Secretary's Certificate ratifying the authority of the signatory can cure the defect in the certification against forum shopping.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the President of the petitioner association was duly authorized to sign the Verification/Certification of Non-Forum Shopping for the petition for certiorari filed with the CA.
  • Whether a Board Resolution authorizing the filing of a complaint for specific performance automatically authorizes the filing of a separate petition for certiorari.

• Procedural:
  • The petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is improper. An order of dismissal issued by the CA is a final order which is a proper subject of appeal under Rule 45, not certiorari. The existence and availability of the right of appeal are antithetical to the availability of certiorari. Petitioner failed to allege and prove that appeal would be inadequate, insufficient, or not speedy enough to qualify as an exception to the general rule.
  • Subsequent compliance with the certification requirement does not ipso facto entitle a party to reconsideration of the dismissal order. The requirement under Administrative Circular No. 04-94 is mandatory. While the Court has excused non-compliance in cases with special circumstances or compelling reasons making strict application unjustified or inequitable, no such circumstances exist in this case.
• Substantive:
  • The President was not duly authorized to sign the certification for the certiorari petition. The Board Resolution dated November 7, 1999 specifically authorized the President to "initiate, sign, file and prosecute the Complaint [for specific performance]," not the petition for certiorari. Certiorari is a special civil action that is separate and distinct from the original action for specific performance. It is an original and independent action invoking the original jurisdiction of the court, not part of the trial proceedings.
  • The Secretary's Certificate submitted with the Motion for Reconsideration, showing a Board Resolution dated April 7, 2002 (after the March 26, 2002 filing), is insufficient to cure the defect. There was no certification showing that the Board originally granted authority as of the filing date. Moreover, subsequent ratification after filing does not cure the initial defect in the absence of special circumstances.

• Hierarchy of Remedies (Certiorari vs. Appeal) — Certiorari under Rule 65 is an extraordinary remedy that cannot be used when the ordinary remedy of appeal under Rule 45 is available. An order of dismissal by the CA is a final order appealable under Rule 45, not subject to certiorari, unless appeal would be inadequate, insufficient, or not speedy.
• Corporate Authority and Certification Against Forum Shopping — If the real party-in-interest is a corporate body, an officer can sign the certification against forum shopping only if duly authorized by a resolution of its board of directors. The authorization must be specific to the action being filed. A resolution authorizing the filing of the original complaint does not automatically authorize the filing of a subsequent special civil action for certiorari, as the latter is a separate and distinct proceeding.
• Curability of Defect in Certification Against Forum Shopping — Subsequent compliance with the certification requirement does not automatically entitle a party to reconsideration of a dismissal order. The requirement is mandatory, and while the Court may excuse non-compliance in the presence of special circumstances or compelling reasons making strict application unjustified or inequitable, mere subsequent ratification of authority after filing is insufficient.

• "Certiorari, as a special civil action, is an original action invoking the original jurisdiction of a court to annul or modify the proceedings of a tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions. It is an original and independent action that is not part of the trial or the proceedings on the complaint filed before the trial court."
• "The petition for certiorari before the CA is, therefore, a separate and distinct action from the action for specific performance instituted before the RTC, as the writ of certiorari being prayed for is directed against the judicial or quasi-judicial body, not against the private parties in the original action for specific performance."
• "The existence and availability of the right of appeal are antithetical to the availability of the special civil action for certiorari, although where it is shown that the appeal would be inadequate, slow, insufficient, and will not promptly relieve a party from the injurious effects of the order complained of, or where appeal is inadequate and ineffectual, the extraordinary writ of certiorari may be granted."
• "In Fuentebella v. Castro, the Court categorically stated that 'if the real party-in-interest is a corporate body, an officer of the corporation can sign the certification against forum shopping so long as he has been duly authorized by a resolution of its board of directors.'"

• Fuentebella v. Castro — Cited for the rule that a corporate officer can sign the certification against forum shopping only if duly authorized by a board resolution.
• BA Savings Bank v. Sia — Referenced by petitioner as erroneously applied by the CA; case involves requirements for certification against forum shopping.
• Abedes v. Court of Appeals — Cited for the requirements that a petition for certiorari must set out and demonstrate plainly and distinctly all facts essential to establish a right to a writ, including the absence of plain, speedy, and adequate remedy.
• Magestrado v. People — Cited for the rule that an order of dismissal is a final order which is a proper subject of appeal, not certiorari.
• Pasiona v. Court of Appeals — Cited for the rule that if what is being assailed is a decision, final order or resolution of the CA, appeal to the Supreme Court is via petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.
• Tible and Tible Company, Inc. v. Royal Savings and Loan Association — Cited for the rule that subsequent compliance with certification requirements does not ipso facto entitle a party to reconsideration, and that certiorari being an extraordinary remedy requires strict observance of rules.
• Athena Computers, Inc. v. Reyes — Cited within Tible for the principle that certiorari being an extraordinary remedy requires strict observance of rules.
• Batoy v. Regional Trial Court — Cited for the mandatory nature of the certification requirement under Administrative Circular No. 04-94 and that subsequent compliance does not excuse initial failure to comply.

• Rule 65, Section 1 of the Rules of Court — Governs the petition for certiorari and its requirements (absence of appeal or plain, speedy, and adequate remedy).
• Rule 45 of the Rules of Court — Governs appeals by certiorari to the Supreme Court from decisions or final orders of the Court of Appeals.
• Section 248 of the Local Government Code — Cited by petitioner regarding representation of local government units (that the Office of the City Legal Officer is the only office authorized to represent the LGU in civil actions).
• Administrative Circular No. 04-94 — Cited regarding the mandatory nature of the certification against forum shopping requirement.