This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
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 | |||||
|
2008-02-11 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| In Vicar International Construction, Inc. v. FEB Leasing and Finance Corporation,[15] the Court reiterated the principle that technical rules of procedure should be used to promote, not frustrate, justice. Citing the case of BA Savings Bank v. Sia,[16] the Court held:x x x [t]he Court of Appeals denied due course to a petition for certiorari filed by BA Savings Bank. The CA's action was grounded on the fact that the Certification on anti-forum shopping incorporated in the Petition had been signed merely by the bank's counsel, not by a duly authorized representative, as required under Supreme Court Circular No. 28-91. Subsequently filed by the petitioner was a Motion for Reconsideration, to which was attached a Certificate issued by the corporate secretary. The Certificate showed that the Resolution promulgated by the board of directors had authorized the lawyers of petitioner "to represent it in any action or proceeding before any court, tribunal or agency; and to sign, execute and deliver the certificate of non-forum shopping," among others. Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals denied the Motion on the ground that Supreme Court Revised Circular No. 28-91 "requires that it is the petitioner, not the counsel, who must certify under oath to all of the facts and undertakings required therein." | |||||