Saturday, March 31, 2007 Certificate of non-forum shopping By Dominador A. Almirante Labor case digest
THE petition for certiorari filed by petitioner Metro Drug Distribution, Inc. with the Court of Appeals was dismissed on the ground of, among others, that the certificate against forum shopping was executed and signed by the alleged Vice-President for Finance and Human Resources without any evidence to prove his authority from the Board of Directors to represent the petitioner corporation. In its motion for reconsideration, petitioner likewise failed to comply with the requirement. Was the dismissal justified?
The same error occurred with respect to their certificate against forum shopping which failed to conform to the requirements of Section 1 (2), Rule 65 and Section 3 (3), Rule 46. The appellate court correctly ruled that the certificate was defective because it was signed by the Vice President for Finance and Human Resources without evidence of her authority to represent petitioner corporation and the officers impleaded. Again, despite the dismissal of the petition on this ground, petitioners repeated the omission in their motion for reconsideration. They failed to attach the required proof. The appellate court therefore found no reason to reconsider the dismissal of the petition.
In justifying their non-compliance, petitioners lost sight of the fact that subsequently conforming with the rules could have cured the procedural defects of their petition and could have provided a basis for reconsideration.
In many instances, courts have reconsidered petitions initially deficient in form upon an erring party’s satisfactory explanation and subsequent compliance with the rules. (Metro Drug Distribution, Inc., et. al. vs. Noel M. Narciso, G.R. No. 147478, July 17, 2006)
