The Supreme Court has ruled that in certain cases, the late submission of a Secretary’s Certificate to prove the authority of a representative to sign a verification and certification against forum shopping can be considered substantial compliance with procedural rules. This means that even if a corporation initially fails to provide complete documentation, the case will not automatically be dismissed, as long as the missing proof is later submitted and the corporation shows a reasonable attempt to comply with the rules. This ruling highlights the court’s preference for deciding cases on their merits rather than on technicalities.

Can a Belated Corporate Document Save a Case from Dismissal? The Landheights vs. Mediserv Saga

This case revolves around a dispute over a foreclosed property. Mediserv, Inc. lost a property to Landheights Development Corporation in a foreclosure sale. When Landheights filed an ejectment case to take possession, Mediserv contested, leading to appeals and a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA initially dismissed Landheights’ petition because the verification and certification against forum shopping were signed by Dickson Tan, but without proof of his authority to represent the corporation. The critical legal question was whether Landheights’ subsequent submission of a Secretary’s Certificate, attesting to Tan’s authority, could cure the initial defect and allow the case to proceed.

The Supreme Court (SC) examined the requirement for corporations to provide proof of authorization when a representative signs legal documents. While the Rules of Court require a certification of non-forum shopping to be signed by the principal party, in the case of a corporation, this task is performed by a duly authorized individual. The initial failure to provide this proof could lead to dismissal. However, the SC also recognized the principle of substantial compliance, particularly when the missing document is later submitted.

The Court emphasized that while procedural rules are essential, they should not be applied so rigidly as to defeat the ends of justice. Citing Shipside Incorporated v. Court of Appeals, the SC reiterated that verification is a formal requirement, not jurisdictional. Moreover, The court quoted:

It is undisputed that on October 21, 1999, the time petitioner’s Resident Manager Balbin filed the petition, there was no proof attached thereto that Balbin was authorized to sign the verification and non-forum shopping certification therein, as a consequence of which the petition was dismissed by the Court of Appeals. However, subsequent to such dismissal, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, attaching to said motion a certificate issued by its board secretary stating that on October 11, 1999, or ten days prior to the filing of the petition, Balbin had been authorized by petitioner’s board of directors to file said petition.

The SC acknowledged that lack of certification against forum shopping is generally not curable by subsequent submission. However, the SC also carved out exceptions. In multiple cases, the Court has considered the belated filing of certification a substantial compliance with the requirement. The court further rationalized that the requirement must not be interpreted too literally that will defeat the objective of preventing the undesirable practice of forum-shopping.

In this case, Landheights rectified the deficiency by submitting the Secretary’s Certificate, attesting to Mr. Dickson Tan’s authority. This subsequent compliance was deemed sufficient to meet the requirements of the rules. As a result, the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals, which had reinstated Landheights’ petition for review.

Building on this principle, the Supreme Court has consistently held that procedural rules should be liberally construed to promote substantial justice. As the Court noted in Ateneo de Naga University v. Manalo, if it has allowed the belated filing of the certification against forum shopping for compelling reasons in previous rulings, with more reason should it sanction the timely submission of such certification, even though the proof of the signatory’s authority was submitted thereafter.

The Supreme Court also clarified that the petition filed by Mediserv was under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. The petition requires the existence of grave abuse of discretion, which exists when a court or tribunal performs an act with a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. In this case, no such grave abuse of discretion existed to warrant the issuance of the extraordinary writ of certiorari.

The High Court held that the appellate court did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it reinstated the petition filed by Landheights Development Corporation. The Supreme Court emphasized that it is more in accord with substantial justice that the case be decided on the merits. In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed Mediserv’s petition and affirmed the resolutions of the Court of Appeals.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in reinstating Landheights’ petition for review, despite the initial lack of proof of the signatory’s authority to sign the verification and certification against forum shopping.
What is a Secretary’s Certificate?	A Secretary’s Certificate is a document certified by the corporate secretary, attesting to certain facts, such as the authority of an individual to act on behalf of the corporation. In this case, it proved that Dickson Tan was authorized to sign legal documents for Landheights.
What does “substantial compliance” mean in this context?	Substantial compliance means that while there may have been a formal defect in the initial filing, the party has made a reasonable attempt to comply with the rules. In this case, Landheights’ subsequent submission of the Secretary’s Certificate demonstrated their intent to comply.
Why is a certification against forum shopping required?	A certification against forum shopping is required to ensure that a party is not simultaneously pursuing the same claim in different courts or tribunals. This helps prevent conflicting decisions and promotes judicial efficiency.
Can a corporation always submit missing documents later?	No, the court’s acceptance of belatedly submitted documents depends on the circumstances of the case. The court considers whether there was a reasonable attempt to comply with the rules and whether substantial justice would be served by allowing the case to proceed.
What is grave abuse of discretion?	Grave abuse of discretion refers to a situation where a court or tribunal exercises its judgment in a capricious, whimsical, or arbitrary manner, amounting to a lack of jurisdiction. This is a high standard that must be met to warrant the issuance of a writ of certiorari.
What was the final decision in this case?	The Supreme Court dismissed Mediserv’s petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ resolutions, which had reinstated Landheights’ petition for review. The case was remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings.
What is the practical implication of this ruling?	The practical implication is that corporations should ensure that all necessary documents, including proof of authorization for signatories, are submitted with their initial filings. However, a good-faith effort to comply with the rules and the subsequent submission of missing documents may prevent dismissal of the case.

The Mediserv, Inc. v. Court of Appeals ruling underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding substantial justice by allowing flexibility in procedural rules when warranted. While strict adherence to rules is generally expected, the court recognizes that technicalities should not prevent a case from being decided on its merits, particularly when there is evidence of a good-faith effort to comply with the rules.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: MEDISERV, INC. VS. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No. 161368, April 05, 2010