GR 143088; (January, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 143088 ; January 24, 2006
PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., MANOLO AQUINO, JORGE MA. CUI, JR. and PATRICIA CHIONG, Petitioners, vs. FLIGHT ATTENDANTS AND STEWARDS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES (FASAP) and LEONARDO BHAGWANI, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners sought the reversal of Court of Appeals resolutions dismissing their appeal from a labor case. The underlying dispute involved a complaint for unfair labor practice and illegal dismissal filed by respondents against Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL) and its officers. The Labor Arbiter ruled against PAL, a decision later modified but largely affirmed by the NLRC.
The procedural issue arose when petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The attached Certification of Non-Forum Shopping was executed by two PAL officers, Cesar R. Lamberte and Susan Del Carmen, who were not parties to the case. The certification lacked any proof that these officers were authorized to sign on behalf of PAL. Consequently, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition. A motion for reconsideration was filed, attaching a Secretary’s Certificate showing the Board of Directors authorized the two officers via a resolution dated February 15, 2000.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for certiorari due to an invalid Certification of Non-Forum Shopping.
RULING
Yes, the dismissal was proper. The Rules of Court require a valid Certification of Non-Forum Shopping executed by the petitioner or petitioners. For a corporation, the certification must be signed by a natural person duly authorized through a board resolution, and proof of such authority must be attached to the petition. Failure to attach this proof is a ground for dismissal.
In this case, the certification filed with the petition on January 24, 2000, was invalid because the signatories lacked authority at the time of signing. The submitted Secretary’s Certificate, dated February 15, 2000, granted authority only after the petition was filed and dismissed. The Court ruled that a certification must be valid at the time of filing; a subsequently granted authority cannot retroactively validate a previously unauthorized act. Therefore, the petition was effectively filed without a certification from the principal party, PAL, warranting its dismissal. The petition was denied.