|
Saturday, June 04, 2005
Certification Vs. forum shopping
By Dominador A. Almirante
Labor case digest
From the decision of a panel of voluntary arbitrators of the National Conciliation and Mediation Board, petitioner United Pulp and Paper Co. Inc. filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for review under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.
The appellate court dismissed the petition outright because the verification and certification of non-forum shopping was signed only by the counsel for the petitioner corporation rather than by a duly authorized officer thereof. Was the dismissal justified?
Ruling: Yes
We agree with the Court of Appeals. Section 5, Rule 7 of the same rules provides that it is the plaintiff or principal party who shall certify under oath in the complaint or other initiatory pleading that he has not commenced any action involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency.
Here, only the petitioner’s counsel signed the certification against forum shopping. There is no showing that he was authorized by the petitioner company to represent the latter and to sign the certification.
In Sy Chin vs. Court of Appeals, we held that “the petition is flawed
as the certificate of non-forum shopping was signed only by counsel and not by the party.” The rule requires that it should be the plaintiff or principal party who should sign the certification; otherwise, this requirement would easily be circumvented by the signature of every counsel representing corporate parties. (United Pulp and Paper Co. Inc. vs. United Pulp and Paper Chapter-Federation of Free Workers, G.R. 141117, March 25, 2004.)
(June 4, 2005 issue)
Write letter to the editor.Click here.
Join the Sun.Star message board.Click here.
|
|
[return to top]
[home]
[network page]
|
LOCAL NEWS
BUSINESS
OPINION
SPORTS
LIFESTYLE
FEATURE
SUPERBALITA
WEEKEND
|
