This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2010-04-07 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In China Banking Corporation v. Mondragon International Philippines, Inc.,[17] the CA dismissed the petition filed by China Bank, since the latter failed to show that its bank manager who signed the certification against non-forum shopping was authorized to do so. We reversed the CA and said that the case be decided on the merits despite the failure to attach the required proof of authority, since the board resolution which was subsequently attached recognized the pre-existing status of the bank manager as an authorized signatory. | |||||
|
2008-10-17 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| With more reason should the instant case be allowed since petitioner did submit a certification against forum shopping, failing only to show proof that the signatory was authorized to do so. In Shipside Incorporated v. Court of Appeals,[44] Ateneo de Naga University v. Manalo,[45] Pascual & Santos Inc. v. The Member of the Tramo Wakas Neighborhood Association, Inc.[46] and China Banking Corporation v. Mondragon International Philippines, Inc.,[47] the Court permitted the subsequent submission of proof of authority to sign the certification against forum shopping. | |||||
|
2008-04-16 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| In Benguet Corporation v. Cordillera Caraballo Mission, Inc,[23] the Court gave due course to the petition considering that the signatory's authority to sign the certification was ratified by the Board and the purpose of the certification, which is to prohibit and penalize the evils of forum shopping, was not circumvented.[24] Likewise, in China Banking Corporation v. Mondragon International Philippines, Inc.,[25] the Court ruled that the complaint be decided on the merits despite the failure to attach the required proof of authority, because the board resolution subsequently attached recognized the signatory's preexisting status as an authorized signatory.[26] | |||||
|
2008-03-28 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Commission,[36] Vicar International Construction, Inc. v. FEB Leasing and Finance Corporation,[37] Ateneo De Naga University v. Manalo,[38] China Banking Corporation v. Mondragon International Philippines, Inc.,[39] LDP Marketing, Inc. v. Monter,[40] Varorient Shipping Co., Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission,[41] and most recently in Cana v. Evangelical Free Church of the Philippines ,[42] and continues to be the controlling doctrine. As in the aforementioned cases, YMCA rectified its failure to submit proof of Golangco's authority to sign the Verification and Certification on Non-Forum Shopping on its behalf when it attached in its Motion for Reconsideration a Secretary's Certificate issued by its | |||||
|
2008-03-14 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| There is ample jurisprudence holding that subsequent and substantial compliance may call for the relaxation of the rules of procedure in the interest of justice.[39] In Novelty Phils., Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[40] the Court faulted the appellate court for dismissing a petition solely on petitioner's failure to timely submit proof of authority to sue on behalf of the corporation. In Pfizer, Inc. v. Galan,[41] we upheld the sufficiency of a petition verified by an employment specialist despite the total absence of a board resolution authorizing her to act for and on behalf of the corporation. Lastly, in China Banking Corporation v. Mondragon International Philippines, Inc,[42] we relaxed the rules of procedure because the corporation ratified the manager's status as an authorized signatory. In all of the above cases, we brushed aside technicalities in the interest of justice. This is not to say that we disregard the requirement of prior authority to act in the name of a corporation. The relaxation of the rules applies only to highly meritorious cases, and when there is substantial compliance. While it is true that rules of procedure are intended to promote rather than frustrate the ends of justice, and while the swift unclogging of court dockets is a laudable objective, we should not insist on strict adherence to the rules at the expense of substantial justice.[43] Technical and procedural rules are intended to help secure, not suppress, the cause of justice; and a deviation from the rigid enforcement of the rules may be allowed to attain that prime objective, for, after all, the dispensation of justice is the core reason for the existence of courts.[44] | |||||
|
2007-06-08 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The RTC correctly found that the MTCC did not abuse its discretion when it denied petitioner's motion to dismiss Civil Case No. 3706. Grave abuse of discretion exists only where an act of a court or tribunal is performed with a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross, as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law as where, by reason of personal hostility, the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner. Mere errors of fact or law committed by the lower court are not correctible in a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65.[7] | |||||
|
2006-10-16 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In a Petition for Certiorari, it is the burden of petitioner to show grave, not just ordinary, abuse of discretion. Grave abuse of discretion exists where an act of a court or tribunal is performed with a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction,[12] or where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility which must be so patent and gross as to amount to an invasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law - mere abuse of discretion is not enough.[13] Mere errors of fact or law committed by the lower court are not correctable via a Rule 65 Petition for Certiorari.[14] | |||||