The Supreme Court has clarified the requirements for verifying petitions and certifying non-forum shopping, particularly for corporations. The Court ruled that while strict compliance is necessary, the late submission of a corporate secretary’s certificate authorizing a signatory can be considered substantial compliance, preventing the dismissal of a petition. This decision reinforces the principle that procedural rules should not be applied so rigidly as to defeat the ultimate objective of preventing forum shopping and ensuring justice.

Beyond a Locked Door: When Constructive Delivery Doesn’t Mean Vacated Premises

This case revolves around a lease dispute between the Chinese Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA) and Remington Steel Corporation. Remington leased several units from YMCA, including ground floor units 964 and 966, and second floor unit 963. After YMCA terminated the lease for unit 963, a series of legal battles ensued, including actions for fixing the lease period, unlawful detainer, and consignation of rentals. The central issue arose when Remington claimed to have surrendered the ground floor units but kept them padlocked, using them as a passageway to the second-floor unit, leading YMCA to file unlawful detainer cases. The question before the Supreme Court was whether YMCA’s petition for review should have been dismissed by the Court of Appeals (CA) for failing to initially provide proof of the signatory’s authority to sign the verification and certification against non-forum shopping.

The Rules of Court mandate that a petition for review must be verified and contain a certification of non-forum shopping. Rule 42, Sections 1 and 2, state these requirements explicitly. Verification ensures the allegations are made in good faith, while the certification prevents parties from pursuing simultaneous remedies in different forums. These rules apply to both individuals and corporations. A corporation can only act through its authorized officers and agents, necessitating proof of such authorization when filing court petitions.

SEC. 1. How appeal taken; time for filing. – A party desiring to appeal from a decision of the Regional Trial Court rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction may file a verified petition for review with the Court of Appeals x x x.

SEC. 2. Form and contents. – The petition shall be filed in seven (7) legible copies, with the original copy intended for the court being indicated as such by the petitioner, x x x.

The petitioner shall also submit together with the petition a certification under oath 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; if there is such other action or proceeding, he must state the status of the same; and if he should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency, he undertakes to promptly inform the aforesaid courts and other tribunal or agency thereof within five (5) days therefrom. (Emphasis supplied)

The Court distinguished between non-compliance with verification and certification requirements. While a lack of verification can be corrected, the absence of a non-forum shopping certification is generally not curable after filing. However, jurisprudence allows for exceptions based on substantial compliance or compelling reasons. Several cases, including Shipside Incorporated v. Court of Appeals, have recognized that submitting a secretary’s certificate attesting to the signatory’s authority after the initial filing constitutes substantial compliance.

In this instance, YMCA initially failed to include proof of William Golangco’s authority to sign the Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping. However, they rectified this by attaching a Secretary’s Certificate to their Motion for Reconsideration, confirming that the Board of Directors had authorized Golangco to file the petition. Citing numerous precedents, the Supreme Court acknowledged this as substantial compliance. This approach aligns with the principle that procedural rules should not be so strictly enforced as to defeat the ends of justice, especially when there is no indication of bad faith or intent to engage in forum shopping.

The Court also addressed the issue of whether Remington had effectively surrendered the leased premises. The Court referred to its prior decision in G.R. No. 171858, which involved a similar unlawful detainer case between the same parties concerning a different unit. In that case, the Court held that Remington’s “constructive delivery” of the premises by vacating but keeping the unit padlocked was not an effective transfer of possession to YMCA.

The filing of the Formal Surrender of Leased Premises and the actual emptying of the premises constitute constructive delivery of possession. Hence, the contract of lease was terminated on July 1, 1998 and it is incumbent upon petitioner, as lessee, to comply with its obligation to return the thing leased to the lessor and vacate the premises.

However, [Remington] failed to comply with its obligation to return the premises to [YMCA]. In order to return the thing leased to the lessor, it is not enough that the lessee vacates it. It is necessary that he places the thing at the disposal of the lessor, so that the latter can receive it without any obstacle. He must return the keys and leave no sub-lessees or other persons in the property; otherwise he shall continue to be liable for rents.

[Remington’s] constructive delivery of the premises did not produce the effect of actual delivery to the [YMCA]. To be effective, it is necessary that the person to whom the delivery is made must be able to take control of it without impediment especially from the person who supposedly made such delivery. In the case at bar, records show that despite the termination of the lease, [YMCA] was never in possession of the premises because it was padlocked. [YMCA] was not given the key to the premises hence it was deprived to use the same as it pleases.

Although the use of the premises as passageway was justified, [Remington] cannot deprive [YMCA] the use of the said premises by having it padlocked. Other than simply repudiating the demand for back rentals, [Remington] should have given [YMCA] a set of keys so it can enter the premises without exposing the property to security risks. Prudence dictates the delivery of the keys to [YMCA] to dispel any doubt that [Remington] is using the premises other than as a mere passageway and that it has never withheld possession of the same to the [YMCA]. [Remington] had several opportunities to give [YMCA] access to the premises starting from the time it sent its first demand to pay back rentals until the complaint for ejectment was filed but it never availed of these opportunities.

From the foregoing, it is apparent that [Remington’s] constructive delivery did not effectively transfer possession of the leased premises to [YMCA]. From the time the lease was terminated, [Remington] unlawfully withheld possession of the leased premises from [YMCA]. However, it appears that [Remington] had moved out from [YMCA’s] building on March 12, 2004, as stated in its Manifestation before Branch 25 of the RTC-Manila. [YMCA] is entitled to a reasonable compensation for [Remington’s] continued occupancy of the premises despite termination of the lease from July 1, 1998 to March 12, 2004.

Under Section 17, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, the trial court may award reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the leased premises after the same is duly proved. In Asian Transmission Corporation v. Canlubang Sugar Estates, the Court ruled that the reasonable compensation contemplated under said Rule partakes of the nature of actual damages based on the evidence adduced by the parties. The Court also ruled that “fair rental value is defined as the amount at which a willing lessee would pay and a willing lessor would receive for the use of a certain property, neither being under compulsion and both parties having a reasonable knowledge of all facts, such as the extent, character and utility of the property, sales and holding prices of similar land and the highest and best use of the property.”

The reasonable compensation for the leased premises fixed by the trial court based on the stipulated rent under the lease contract which is P22,531.00, must be equitably reduced in view of the circumstances attendant in the case at bar. First, it should be noted that the premises was used only as a means of passageway caused by [YMCA’s] failure to provide sufficient passageway towards the second floor unit it also occupies. Second, [YMCA] was negligent because it waited for more than a year before it actually demanded payment for back rentals as reflected in its Statement of Accounts dated September 7, 1999. When both parties to a transaction are mutually negligent in the performance of their obligations, the fault of one cancels the negligence of the other and, as in this case, their rights and obligations may be determined equitably under the law proscribing unjust enrichment. From the foregoing, we find the amount of P11,000.00 a month equitable and reasonable compensation for petitioner’s continued use of the premises.^[48] (Emphasis supplied)

The principle of stare decisis et non quieta movere, which dictates adherence to precedents, was applied. Because the facts in the present case were substantially the same as those in G.R. No. 171858, the Court applied the same ruling. Thus, Remington’s actions constituted unlawful withholding of the leased premises, reinforcing the importance of effective transfer of possession in lease agreements.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing YMCA’s petition for review due to the initial lack of proof of authority for the signatory of the verification and certification against non-forum shopping.
What is a certification of non-forum shopping?	A certification of non-forum shopping is a sworn statement attached to a pleading, affirming that the party has not commenced any other action involving the same issues in other courts or tribunals. It is intended to prevent litigants from pursuing simultaneous remedies in different forums.
What does substantial compliance mean in this context?	Substantial compliance refers to the principle that if a party fulfills the essential requirements of a rule, even if not perfectly, the court may excuse minor deviations, especially if there is no prejudice to the other party. In this case, submitting the Secretary’s Certificate later was considered substantial compliance.
What is the doctrine of stare decisis?	Stare decisis is a legal doctrine that obligates courts to follow precedents set in prior similar cases. It promotes consistency and stability in judicial decisions, ensuring that like cases are treated alike.
What is constructive delivery of property?	Constructive delivery occurs when physical possession of property is not actually transferred, but the act is construed as delivery, such as when a tenant vacates a property but does not return the keys, effectively preventing the landlord from accessing it.
Why was Remington considered to have unlawfully withheld the premises?	Remington was deemed to have unlawfully withheld the premises because, despite vacating the units, they padlocked the doors and did not return the keys to YMCA, preventing YMCA from regaining full possession and use of the property.
What is the significance of a Secretary’s Certificate in corporate litigation?	A Secretary’s Certificate is a document certified by the corporate secretary, attesting to a resolution passed by the board of directors, authorizing a specific person to act on behalf of the corporation in legal matters. It is crucial for establishing the authority of a signatory.
Can procedural rules be relaxed by the courts?	Yes, courts may relax procedural rules in certain circumstances, particularly when strict compliance would defeat the ends of justice or when there is substantial compliance with the rule’s intent, provided there is no prejudice to the other party.

The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of balancing procedural requirements with the broader goal of achieving justice. While compliance with rules like verification and certification against non-forum shopping is crucial, the Court recognizes that substantial compliance, such as the belated submission of a Secretary’s Certificate, can rectify initial omissions, preventing the dismissal of cases based on technicalities. This ruling ensures that corporations are not unduly penalized for minor procedural lapses, provided there is no intent to circumvent the rules or prejudice the opposing party.

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: Chinese Young Men’s Christian Association v. Remington Steel Corporation, G.R. No. 159422, March 28, 2008