This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2013-01-30 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| BPI's subsequent execution of the SPA, however, constituted a ratification of Ramos' unauthorized representation in the collection case filed against the petitioners. A corporation can act only through natural persons duly authorized for the purpose or by a specific act of its board of directors,[17] and can also ratify the unauthorized acts of its corporate officers.[18] The act of ratification is confirmation of what its agent or delegate has done without or with insufficient authority.[19] | |||||
|
2012-06-13 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| However, this very case does not involve a failure to attach the Annexes. Rather, the procedural infirmity consists of omission the failure to sign a Verification and Certification against forum shopping. Addressing this defect squarely, we have already resolved that because of noncompliance with the requirements governing the certification of non-forum shopping, no error could be validly attributed to the CA when it ordered the dismissal of the special civil action for certiorari.[27] The lack of certification against forum shopping is not curable by mere amendment of a complaint, but shall be a cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice.[28] Indeed, the general rule is that subsequent compliance with the requirements will not excuse a party's failure to comply in the first instance.[29] Thus, on procedural aspects, the appellate court correctly dismissed the case. | |||||
|
2012-04-23 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| We have consistently held that the certification against forum shopping must be signed by the principal parties.[15] If, for any reason, the principal party cannot sign the petition, the one signing on his behalf must have been duly authorized.[16] With respect to a corporation, the certification against forum shopping may be signed for and on its behalf, by a specifically authorized lawyer who has personal knowledge of the facts required to be disclosed in such document.[17] A corporation has no power, except those expressly conferred on it by the Corporation Code and those that are implied or incidental to its existence. In turn, a corporation exercises said powers through its board of directors and/or its duly authorized officers and agents. Thus, it has been observed that the power of a corporation to sue and be sued in any court is lodged with the board of directors that exercises its corporate powers. In turn, physical acts of the corporation, like the signing of documents, can be performed only by natural persons duly authorized for the purpose by corporate by-laws or by a specific act of the board of directors.[18] | |||||
|
2012-02-08 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| In addition, the allegations and contentions embodied in the CA petition do not deviate from the claims already made by the heirs in Civil Case Nos. 00-11320 and 797-C, both specifically mentioned in the SPA. We emphasize that the verification requirement 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.[12] We rule that there was no deficiency in the petition's verification and certification against forum shopping filed with the CA. | |||||
|
2011-08-22 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| In addition, the Court has even allowed the filing of a petition for certiorari despite the existence of an appeal or other appropriate remedy in several instances, including when the court a quo acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of or in excess of jurisdiction in issuing the assailed order.[23] | |||||
|
2006-07-14 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Petitioner elevated the case to the CA via a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus,[5] with a prayer for injunctive relief. She ascribed grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, on the part of Judge Laron who dismissed her case. | |||||