The Supreme Court held that a corporate officer’s authority to sign a certification against forum shopping in a legal petition must be expressly authorized by the corporation’s board of directors specifically for that purpose; authorization for a prior complaint does not automatically extend to subsequent special civil actions. This ruling emphasizes the importance of proper authorization in legal proceedings and clarifies the requirements for corporate representation.

Does Prior Complaint Authority Extend to Subsequent Certiorari Petitions?

This case revolves around San Miguel Bukid Homeowners Association, Inc.’s attempt to compel the City of Mandaluyong and A.F. Calma General Construction to fulfill their obligations under a contract for a housing project. After facing setbacks in the lower courts, the association elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals (CA) via a petition for certiorari. However, the CA dismissed the petition because the person who signed the Verification/Certification of Non-Forum Shopping did not appear to be authorized by the association. This dismissal raised critical questions about the scope of a corporate officer’s authority to represent the corporation in legal proceedings, particularly in the context of special civil actions.

The petitioner argued that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion by ruling that its representative was not duly authorized, pointing to a board resolution that authorized the representative to initiate, sign, file, and prosecute the original complaint. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, emphasizing the distinct nature of a certiorari petition as an original action, separate from the underlying complaint. The Court anchored its decision on the principle that authority must be explicitly granted for each specific legal action, not implied or extrapolated from prior authorizations.

Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court establishes that certiorari may be used when there is no appeal or any other swift, plain, and adequate legal remedy. Therefore, to secure a writ of certiorari, a petitioner must distinctly demonstrate the facts necessary to justify the issuance of such a writ, and establish that existing remedies are neither fast nor adequate.

x x x for a petition for certiorari or prohibition to be granted, it must set out and demonstrate, plainly and distinctly, all the facts essential to establish a right to a writ. The petitioner must allege in his petition and has the burden of establishing facts to show that any other existing remedy is not speedy or adequate and that (a) the writ is directed against a tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; (b) such tribunal, board or officer has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction; and, (c) there is no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. These matters must be threshed out and shown by petitioner.

The Supreme Court highlighted the importance of proper authorization in legal representation, referencing Fuentebella v. Castro, which states that an officer can sign the certification against forum shopping if duly authorized by a board resolution. In this instance, the petitioner’s resolution only authorized its president to initiate, sign, file, and prosecute the original complaint. The resolution lacked any language authorizing the representative to initiate separate legal proceedings such as the certiorari petition.

Furthermore, the Court stated that Certiorari, as a special civil action, invokes the court’s original jurisdiction to alter or modify proceedings of an entity exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions. This original action is an independent action, distinct from the proceedings of the complaint. This critical distinction led the Supreme Court to affirm the CA’s decision, stating that the prior authorization for the original complaint could not extend to the subsequent petition for certiorari. The Supreme Court reasoned that because the petitioner’s board of directors approved a resolution to ratify Mr. Barata signing necessary papers for the petition after the petition filing, said compliance did not justify a reconsideration for dismissal. Citing Tible and Tible Company, Inc. v. Royal Savings and Loan Association, the Court emphasized strict adherence to rules must be observed.

The practical implication of this ruling is significant. Homeowners associations and other corporate entities must ensure that their representatives have specific and explicit authorization for each legal action they undertake. Blanket authorizations or assumptions based on prior roles are insufficient. Failure to comply with this requirement can result in the dismissal of a case, regardless of its merits.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether a corporate officer, authorized to file a complaint, also has the authority to file a petition for certiorari without specific authorization.
What is a certification against forum shopping?	A certification against forum shopping is a statement, required in certain legal filings, affirming that the party is not simultaneously pursuing the same case in other courts or tribunals.
Why did the Court of Appeals dismiss the petition?	The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition because the person who signed the Verification/Certification of Non-Forum Shopping did not appear to be authorized by petitioner.
What is the difference between a complaint and a petition for certiorari?	A complaint initiates a civil action, while a petition for certiorari is a special civil action used to review decisions of lower courts or tribunals for grave abuse of discretion.
What did the Supreme Court decide?	The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, holding that the prior authorization for the original complaint does not extend to the subsequent petition for certiorari without specific authorization.
What is the significance of a Board Resolution in this case?	A Board Resolution is a formal decision made by the Board of Directors of a corporation, which authorizes specific actions, such as legal representation. The Board Resolution here lacked authority for the representative to initiate a petition for certiorari.
What does the Supreme Court say about submitting the Secretary’s Certificate with the Motion for Reconsideration?	The Supreme Court deemed submitting a Secretary’s Certificate with the Motion for Reconsideration as insufficient because the Board of Directors ratified Mr. Barata’s authority after the petition was filed.
What is grave abuse of discretion?	Grave abuse of discretion means the decision was so outrageous that it can be inferred that the power was not judiciously exercised, but rather exercised arbitrarily by reason of passion or personal hostility, and it must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty, or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.

This case serves as a reminder of the strict requirements for corporate representation in legal proceedings. It highlights the importance of ensuring that corporate officers have clear and specific authorization for each legal action they undertake, avoiding any assumptions or reliance on prior authorizations. 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: SAN MIGUEL BUKID HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. VS. THE CITY OF MANDALUYONG, G.R. No. 153653, October 02, 2009