Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

BENGUET CORPORATION v. CORDILLERA CARABALLO MISSION

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 202446 2015-09-16	EDUARDO BANDILLION v. LA FILIPINA UYGONGCO CORPORATION PERALTA, J.
We also consider LFUC's allegation that the petition was defective because the SPA was not signed by all petitioners, or that it was signed by some only through unauthorized representatives, to hold no water. In the case at bar, the SPA was signed by everyone but five (5) of the petitioners.[56] According to Altres v. Empleo, the only consequence of such an incomplete signing is that "the non-signing petitioners (as to the certification against forum shopping) are dropped as parties to the case."[57] However, the petition itself survives and not rendered invalid, especially as to the petitioners who signed, who would remain as parties therein. As for those petitioners who are not deceased but who signed through representatives, they, too, remain as parties, because the acts of such representatives may be ratified by these petitioners or the representatives may belatedly submit proof of their authority to act on the petitioners' behalf.[58] As for LFUC's allegation that the deceased employees were not properly substituted, this Court already had occasion to rule that the formal substitution of a deceased worker is not necessary when his heir already had voluntarily appeared and participated in the proceedings before the labor tribunals.[59] The Court held further that the rule on substitution by heirs is not a matter of jurisdiction, but a requirement of due process; it is only when there is a denial of due process, as when the deceased is not represented by any legal representative or heir, that the court nullifies the trial proceedings and the resulting judgment therein.[60] In the case at bar, there is no such denial of. due process as the heirs of the six (6) deceased workers are considered to have voluntarily appeared before this Court by signing the SPA authorizing the filing of this petition. Presumably, they will likewise do the same voluntary appearance or formal substitution in all the succeeding proceedings of the case, including execution. This Court has already ruled that formal substitution of parties is not necessary when the heirs themselves voluntarily appeared, participated, and presented evidence during the proceedings.[61]
	GR No. 176324 2008-04-16	ABAYA INVESTMENTS CORPORATION v. MERIT PHILIPPINES and SERVULO C. DOMINISE 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]
	GR No. 163757 2007-11-23	GORDOLAND DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. REPUBLIC QUISUMBING, J.
Anent the first issue, this Court has consistently held that the requirement regarding verification of a pleading is formal, not jurisdictional. Such requirement is a condition affecting the form of the pleading; non-compliance with this requirement does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective. Verification is simply intended to secure an assurance that the allegations in the pleading are true and correct and not the product of the imagination or a matter of speculation, and that the pleading is filed in good faith.[23] Further, the purpose of the aforesaid certification is to prohibit and penalize the evils of forum-shopping. Considering that later on Atty. Paderanga's authority to sign the verification and certificate of non-forum shopping was ratified[24] by the board, there is no circumvention of the aforestated objectives.
	GR NO. 146224 2007-01-26	VIRGINIA REAL v. SISENANDO H. BELO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
On the necessity of attaching position papers and affidavits of witnesses, Section 2 of Rule 42 of the Revised Rules of Court requires attachments if these would support the allegations of the petition.[25] In the present case, there was no compelling need to attach the position papers of the parties since the Decisions of the MeTC and RTC already stated their respective arguments. As to the affidavits, the Court notes that they were presented by the respondent as part of the testimony of his witness Fire Investigator Pinca and therefore would not support the allegations of the petitioner.
	GR NO. 169241 2006-05-02	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. PENDATUN G. LAJA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Furthermore, as is oft said the provisions of the Rules of Court should be applied with reason and liberality to promote its objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding. Rules of procedure are used to help secure and not override substantial justice. Thus, the dismissal of an appeal on a purely technical ground is frowned upon especially if it will result in unfairness.[16]