You're currently signed in as:
User

PNCC SKYWAY TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT v. PNCC SKYWAY CORPORATION

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

2013-01-30
BRION, J.
In PNCC Skyway Traffic Management and Security Division Workers Organization (PSTMSDWO) v. PNCC Skyway Corporation,[20] we considered the subsequent execution of a board resolution authorizing the Union President to represent the union in a petition filed against PNCC Skyway Corporation as an act of ratification by the union that cured the defect in the petition's verification and certification against forum shopping. We held that "assuming that Mr. Soriano (PSTMSDWO's President) has no authority to file the petition on February 27, 2006, the passing on June 30, 2006 of a Board Resolution authorizing him to represent the union is deemed a ratification of his prior execution, on February 27, 2006, of the verification and certificate of non-forum shopping, thus curing any defects thereof."
2010-12-15
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Nonetheless, under the circumstances of this case, it bears reiterating that the requirement of the certification of non-forum shopping is rooted in the principle that a party-litigant shall not be allowed to pursue simultaneous remedies in different fora, as this practice is detrimental to an orderly judicial procedure. However, the Court has relaxed, under justifiable circumstances, the rule requiring the submission of such certification considering that, although it is obligatory, it is not jurisdictional. Not being jurisdictional, it can be relaxed under the rule of substantial compliance.[18]
2010-10-18
DEL CASTILLO, J.
Moreover, this Court's pronouncement in Cagayan Valley Drug Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,[14] reiterated in PNCC Skyway Traffic Management and Security Division Workers Organization v. PNCC Skyway Corporation[15] and Mid-Pasig Land Development Corporation v. Tablante,[16] on the authority of certain officers and employees of the corporation to sign the verification and certification of non-forum shopping is likewise significant, to wit: It must be borne in mind that Sec. 23, in relation to Sec. 25 of the Corporation Code, clearly enunciates that all corporate powers are exercised, all business conducted, and all properties controlled by the board of directors.  A corporation has a separate and distinct personality from its directors and officers and can only exercise its corporate powers through the board of directors.  Thus, it is clear that an individual corporate officer cannot solely exercise any corporate power pertaining to the corporation without authority from the board of directors.  This has been our constant holding in cases instituted by a corporation.