Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PHILIPPINE AIRLINES v. FLIGHT ATTENDANTS

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 179488 2012-04-23	COSCO PHILIPPINES SHIPPING v. KEMPER INSURANCE COMPANY PERALTA, J.
In Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (FASAP),[19] we ruled that only individuals vested with authority by a valid board resolution may sign the certificate of non-forum shopping on behalf of a corporation. We also required proof of such authority to be presented. The petition is subject to dismissal if a certification was submitted unaccompanied by proof of the signatory's authority.
	GR No. 161838 2010-04-07	REPUBLIC v. COALBRINE INTERNATIONAL PHILIPPINES PERALTA, J.
In Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (FASAP),[16] we ruled that only individuals vested with authority by a valid board resolution may sign the certificate of non-forum shopping on behalf of a corporation. We also required that proof of such authority must be attached. Failure to provide a certificate of non-forum shopping is sufficient ground to dismiss the petition. Likewise, the petition is subject to dismissal if a certification was submitted unaccompanied by proof of signatory's authority.
	GR No. 167415 2010-02-26	ATTY. MANGONTAWAR M. GUBAT v. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION DEL CASTILLO, J.
The same liberal application should also apply to the question of the alleged lack of authority of Atty. Doromal to execute the certification of non-forum shopping for lack of a board resolution from the NPC. True, only individuals vested with authority by a valid board resolution may sign the certificate of non-forum shopping in behalf of the corporation, and proof of such authority must be attached to the petition,[38] the failure of which will be sufficient cause for dismissal. Nevertheless, it cannot be said that Atty. Doromal does not enjoy the presumption that he is authorized to represent respondent in filing the Petition for Certiorari before the CA. As Special Attorney, he is one of the counsels of NPC in the proceedings before the trial court, and the NPC never questioned his authority to sign the petition for its behalf.
	GR No. 162525 2008-09-23	ASEAN PACIFIC PLANNERS v. CITY OF URDANETA QUISUMBING, J.
Indeed, Cesar Goco had no proof of his authority to sign the verification and certification of non-forum shopping of the petition for certiorari filed with the Court of Appeals.[14] Thus, the Court of Appeals is allowed by the rules the discretion to dismiss the petition since only individuals vested with authority by a valid board resolution may sign the certificate of non-forum shopping in behalf of a corporation. Proof of said authority must be attached; otherwise, the petition is subject to dismissal.[15]
	GR No. 151413 2008-02-13	CAGAYAN VALLEY DRUG CORPORATION v. CIR VELASCO JR., J.
In Philippine Airlines v. Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines, we ruled that only individuals vested with authority by a valid board resolution may sign the certificate of non-forum shopping on behalf of a corporation. The action can be dismissed if the certification was submitted unaccompanied by proof of the signatory's authority.[14] We believe that appending the board resolution to the complaint or petition is the better procedure to obviate any question on the authority of the signatory to the verification and certification. The required submission of the board resolution is grounded on the basic precept that corporate powers are exercised by the board of directors,[15] and not solely by an officer of the corporation. Hence, the power to sue and be sued in any court or quasi-judicial tribunal is necessarily lodged with the said board.