Case Digest (G.R. No. 168313)
Facts:
Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Hon. Court of Appeals, Hon. Romeo Barza, in His Capacity as the Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Br. 61, First Union Group Enterprises and Linda Wu Hu, G.R. No. 168313, promulgated October 06, 2010, Supreme Court Third Division, Brion, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) loaned First Union Group Enterprises (First Union) PhP5,000,000.00 and USD123,218.32, evidenced by promissory notes; Linda Wu Hu (Linda) executed a Comprehensive Surety Agreement and, with her spouse, mortgaged two condominium units as partial security. After defaults, BPI foreclosed extrajudicially; it successfully bid at public auction but a substantial deficiency remained (PhP4,742,949.32 and USD175,324.35 as of December 21, 2001).
On January 3, 2002, BPI filed a complaint for collection in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, Branch 61. The complaint was verified and bore a certificate of non-forum shopping signed by Ma. Cristina F. Asis and Kristine L. Ong, but did not include a Secretary’s Certificate or Board Resolution evidencing Asis’s and Ong’s authority to sign. On April 1, 2002, First Union and Linda moved to dismiss under Rule 7, Section 5, Rules of Civil Procedure, for failure to attach proof authorizing the signatories.
BPI opposed (Aug. 7, 2002), contending the verification and certificate themselves established authority and that proof could be presented at trial; instead of a board resolution it attached a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) dated Dec. 20, 2001 executed by a bank vice-president. The RTC granted the motion to dismiss by order dated August 26, 2002 (the assailed RTC order) and denied BPI’s motion for reconsideration on November 13, 2002.
BPI filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals (CA) on February 5, 2003, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the RTC. The CA treated the RTC dismissal as interlocutory because it was expressly without prejudice, and thus entertained the Rule 65 petition; however, on November 2, 2004 (CA-G.R. SP No. 75350) the CA affirmed the RTC, holding BPI failed to comply with Sec. 5, Rule 7 by not attaching a board resolution or other appropriate proof of authority, and refused to accept the belated submissions as substantial compliance. The CA denied BPI’s motion for reconsiderati...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the Court of Appeals correct to treat the RTC order dismissing the complaint without prejudice as interlocutory and to entertain the Rule 65 petition?
- Did BPI’s failure to attach a board resolution or other proper proof of authority to the verification and certificate of non-forum shopping warrant dismissal under Sec. 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, and can the Ship‑side liberal exception (or belated submission of SPA and secre...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)