d2015member

[Mid-Pasig Land Devt Corp v. Mario Tablante (doing business under the name ECRM Ent), Rockland Construction Co, Laurie Litam, and MC Home Depot, Inc.] 2010 Nachura, J. Short version of facts: Mid-Pasig leased its land to Tablante. When the lease expired, it wanted Tablante and other sub-lessees (respondents) to vacate. When they did not, Mid-Pasig filed an unlawful detainer case. MTC dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and CA dismissed because of an error in Mid-Pasigs certificate of non-forum shopping (CA says Mid-Pasig had to attach the companys board resolution attesting to the persons authority to sign the cert of non-forum shopping). Mid-Pasig leased 1 hectare of its Pasig land to ECRM Ent (represented by ECRM proprietor Tablante) for 3 months. On the date of the expiration of the lease (March 6, 2000): o Tablante assigned all his rights and interests to Litam and Rockland Company under a Deed of Assignment. o Mid-Pasig demanded that Tablante vacate. Eventually, Mid-Pasig learned that Tablante leased the same land to MC Home Depot and that MC Home Depot constructed 59 commercial stalls. These stalls were leased to various entities. 2001: Rockland filed a Specific Performance case with RTC-Pasig to compel Mid-Pasig to execute a new contract of lease for another 3 yrs commencing July 2000. 2001: Mid-Pasig - Filed an unlawful detainer case against Tabante and other respondents in MTC-Pasig. MTC-Pasig dismissed: o Ruled that the issue did not involve physical possession, but whether ECRM had the right to exercise an option to renew its lease contract. o Ruled that the issue was incapable of pecuniary estimation so jurisdiction was vested in the RTC 2003: Mid-Pasig appealed but RTC-Pasig affirmed. 2003: On Mid-Pasig petition for certiorari to CA, CA dismissed because: o The certification of non-forum shopping was signed by a certain Mercelos as General Manager of Mid-Pasig but the Corporate Secretarys certificate or board resolution that Mercelos was authorized to sign, was not attached. o There was a lack of pertinent and necessary documents which are material portions of the record as required by Section 2, Rule 42 of the Rules of Civil Procedure MR denied.

Issues/Held: Did the verification and certification against forum-shopping in the petition fail to attach the Board Resolution showing the authority of the affiant? NO, there was no failure to attach. Did the petition lack the pertinent and necessary documents required by the rules? NO Ratio: Some corporate officers have the authority to sign the verification and certification against forum shopping. Cagayan Valley Drug Corp v. Commission of Internal Revenue: Sec. 23, in relation to Sec. 25 of the Corporation Code, states that all corporate powers are exercised, all business conducted, and all properties controlled by the board of directors. A corporation has a separate and distinct personality from its directors, and officers can ONLY exercise its corporate powers through the board of directors. BUT in Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority v. CA: SC recognized the authority of a general manager or acting general manager to sign the verification and certificate against forum shopping In some cases, the following officials/employees can sign the verification and certification without need of a board resolution: 1. Chairperson of the Board of Directors, 2. President of a corporation, 3. General Manager or Acting General Manager, 4. Personnel Officer, and 5. an Employment Specialist in a labor case The determination of the sufficiency of the authority was done on a case to case basis. The rationale was that they were in a position to verify the truthfulness and correctness of the allegations in the petition. And so in this case, the failure to attach the Secretarys Certificate attesting to Mereloss authority to sign the Certification of Non-Forum Shopping is not fatal to the filing of the petition. (Even so, the board resolution was subsequently submitted to the CA, together with the pertinent documents) Considering that petitioner substantially complied with the rules, the dismissal of the petition was, therefore, unwarranted. Dismissal of an appeal on a purely technical ground is frowned upon especially if it will result in unfairness. The rules of procedure should not to be applied in a rigid, technical sense for they were adopted to help secure, not override, substantial justice. CA erred in dismissing the petition BUT in light of recent developments, remand is no longer necessary. Mid-Pasig (in its Memo dated Oct 28, 2005) alleged that Tablantes and other respondents possessory claims had lapsed and so became moot and academic. Rockland prayed for a 3-year lease period but since the lease contract already expired as of July or Aug 2003, there is no reason why Tablante should continue to have any claim to further possession of the property. Petition granted.