In a case concerning maritime employment, the Supreme Court clarified the requirements for non-forum shopping certifications, particularly when a corporation and its officers, or a local agent and its foreign principal, are involved. The Court ruled that substantial compliance can suffice, and that a certification executed by the local manning agent can bind its foreign principal. This means that maritime workers seeking redress need not worry about technical defects in certifications, so long as the essential requirements are met and the agent has the authority to represent the principal.

Whose Signature Matters? Navigating Non-Forum Shopping in Seafarer Claims

The case of Varorient Shipping Co., Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and Rolando M. Perez arose from a disability claim filed by Perez, a seafarer, against Varorient, his local manning agent, and Lagoa Shipping Corporation, the foreign principal. After developing back pain while working on board a vessel, Perez sought disability benefits. The NLRC ruled in favor of Perez, a decision Varorient challenged, but the Court of Appeals dismissed Varorient’s petition due to alleged defects in the verification and certification of non-forum shopping. The Court of Appeals took issue with the fact that the certification was signed by Varorient’s representative without express authority to act for the other parties, namely the President of Varorient and the foreign principal. The Supreme Court then stepped in to resolve whether Varorient’s actions constituted sufficient compliance with procedural rules and to clarify the obligations of solidarily liable parties.

At the heart of the matter was the procedural requirement of a “certification of non-forum shopping,” meant to prevent parties from simultaneously pursuing the same case in different courts. The Court acknowledged the importance of this requirement under Section 1, Rule 65, in relation to Section 3, Rule 46 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Generally, when a corporation is involved, the certification must be executed by a natural person authorized by the corporation’s board of directors. Failure to provide proof of the signatory’s authority typically leads to dismissal of the petition. However, the Supreme Court has also recognized exceptions, particularly in cases of substantial compliance.

The Court emphasized that it had previously allowed the belated submission of a secretary’s certificate to demonstrate the signatory’s authority, deeming it substantial compliance. Varorient had indeed submitted such a certificate, albeit after the initial dismissal of its petition by the Court of Appeals. Building on this principle, the Supreme Court determined that the Court of Appeals should have considered the submitted secretary’s certificate demonstrating authority. Varorient rectified its failure to submit proof of its Corporate Secretary’s authority to sign the verification/certification on non-forum shopping on its behalf when the necessary document was attached to its motion for reconsideration before the Court of Appeals.

Further, the Court addressed the issue of Colarina’s failure to execute a separate certification. Under the POEA Rules, corporate officers, directors, and partners are required to execute an undertaking that they would be jointly and severally liable with the company for claims arising from the employer-employee relationship. The Court underscored the nature of solidary obligations, stating that if one solidary debtor (Varorient) is found liable, all are liable. Since Varorient, Colarina, and Lagoa had a common cause of action, a defense or appeal by one benefits the others. Citing the case of De Leon v. Court of Appeals, the Court analogized that since Varorient and Colarina were jointly sued under a common cause of action, Varorient’s compliance should extend to Colarina. This recognition highlights that the interest of the parties are inseparable given their linked responsibility.

Finally, the Court addressed whether the certification filed by Varorient, the local manning agent, was sufficient for its foreign principal, Lagoa. The Court cited the case of MC Engineering, Inc. v. NLRC to support its position that a foreign principal need not execute a separate verification and certification when the local agent has already done so. The Court reasoned that local manning agencies are empowered to sue and be sued jointly and solidarily with the foreign principal under POEA rules. Local private employment agencies are the best position to know the matters required in a certification of non-forum shopping. Moreover, the foreign principal operates in the Philippines through its local agent.

The Court explained that foreign principals lack the capacity to act in the Philippines except through their licensed local manning agents. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals had erred in dismissing the petition due to the perceived deficiencies in the verification and certification of non-forum shopping. The case was remanded to the Court of Appeals for adjudication on the merits. This is critical as it clarifies who has to sign on behalf of whom, helping businesses prevent their legal proceedings being hampered by small issues like these. The Court’s decision ensures that technicalities do not obstruct the pursuit of justice, particularly in cases involving overseas Filipino workers.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The main issue was whether Varorient substantially complied with the requirements for verification and certification against non-forum shopping, and whether separate certifications were needed from its corporate officer and foreign principal.
What is a certification of non-forum shopping?	It’s a sworn statement affirming that the party has not filed any similar case in other courts or tribunals, designed to prevent parties from pursuing simultaneous legal remedies.
What does it mean to be solidarily liable?	Solidary liability means that each debtor is responsible for the entire obligation. The creditor can demand full payment from any one of them.
Why did the Court of Appeals dismiss the original petition?	The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition because the verification and certification of non-forum shopping were deemed deficient, lacking proper authorization for all the petitioners involved.
How did the Supreme Court rule on the issue of substantial compliance?	The Supreme Court held that Varorient had substantially complied with the requirements by submitting the Secretary’s Certificate showing the authority of its representative.
Does a foreign principal need to execute a separate certification?	No, the Supreme Court ruled that the local manning agent’s certification is sufficient to cover the foreign principal, as the agent acts on behalf of the principal in the Philippines.
What are the POEA Rules?	The POEA Rules are the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Rules and Regulations Governing the Recruitment and Employment of Seafarers. It sets obligations for local agencies and foreign employers.
What was the effect of the De Leon v. Court of Appeals case?	It established that an appeal made by one party with a common cause of action benefits other parties with the same cause of action. The Supreme Court used it to validate authority of representative.
What did the Supreme Court ultimately decide?	The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the Court of Appeals’ resolutions, and remanded the case for adjudication on the merits. This gave Varorient a chance to pursue remedies in court.

In summary, this case underscores the importance of adhering to procedural rules while recognizing the principle of substantial compliance, especially in cases involving solidary obligations and the relationship between local agents and foreign principals in maritime employment. The Supreme Court’s decision provides a clearer framework for maritime disputes.

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: Varorient Shipping Co., Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission (Second Division) and Rolando M. Perez, G.R. No. 164940, November 28, 2007