Authority to Sign Certification Against Forum Shopping in Corporate Litigation

The certification against forum shopping is a mandatory requirement in Philippine litigation, but questions often arise about who has the authority to sign it—especially in cases involving corporations. In Fuentebella v. Castro (G.R. No. 150865, June 30, 2006), the Supreme Court clarified the rules on signing this certification, both for corporations and for individual co-petitioners. The ruling provides important guidance for lawyers and parties alike on avoiding procedural pitfalls that can lead to dismissal of a case.

The Facts of the Case

Darlica Castro filed a complaint for damages against Rolling Hills Memorial Park, Inc. and its Park-in-Charge, Art Fuentebella, after a funeral service went badly wrong. During her husband's burial, the casket did not fit the vault and was left under the sun for about an hour while employees measured it with a spade.

Castro initially filed the case with the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), but later withdrew it after the defendants moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. She then filed a similar complaint with the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC denied the motion to dismiss, and the petitioners elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals.

The Procedural Issue

The Court of Appeals dismissed the petitioners' certiorari petition because the verification and certification against forum shopping was signed by Lourdes Pomperada, the corporation's Administrative Manager, without any showing that she was authorized to sign for the corporation or for co-petitioner Fuentebella. The petitioners later submitted a Secretary's Certificate confirming Pomperada's authority for the corporation, but the appellate court still dismissed the petition because there was no showing she was authorized to act for Fuentebella.

The Ruling on Authority to Sign

The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the one signing the verification and certification against forum shopping on behalf of a principal party must have the authority to do so. Under Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, the plaintiff or principal party must execute the certification because that party has actual knowledge of whether a similar case has been filed.

For corporations, the certification should be signed by a duly authorized director or representative, as required by a board resolution. For natural persons, the rule requires the parties themselves to sign. Where there are several petitioners, it is insufficient for only one to execute the certification absent a showing of authority from the others. The Court cited Pet Plans, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, noting that when a corporate officer is impleaded and made jointly and solidarily liable, that officer becomes a real party-in-interest with a stake distinct from the corporation's, making it necessary for him or her to sign the certification as well.

The Issue of False Certification

On the second issue, the petitioners argued that Castro's failure to disclose her earlier MTCC case constituted a false certification warranting dismissal. The Court disagreed. An omission about an event that would not constitute res judicata or litis pendentia is not fatal, since the evils sought to be prevented by the certification are not present. The proper sanction for a false certification, the Court noted, is indirect contempt of court, without prejudice to administrative and criminal actions.

Practical Takeaways

• Corporations must show authority. A certification signed by a corporate officer must be supported by a board resolution or Secretary's Certificate confirming that officer's authority.
• Every co-petitioner matters. When multiple parties are joined, each must sign the certification unless one is expressly authorized by the others, typically through a special power of attorney.
• Officers impleaded personally must sign. A corporate officer who is made jointly and solidarily liable becomes a real party-in-interest and cannot rely on the corporation's authorization alone.
• Not all omissions are fatal. A failure to disclose a prior case that was withdrawn and would not result in res judicata or litis pendentia may not warrant dismissal, but it could still expose the party to contempt sanctions.
• Compliance is mandatory. While courts may relax the rule in exceptional cases, parties must show justifiable cause for non-compliance and prove that dismissal would impair the orderly administration of justice.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.