G.R. No. 179488 - Cosco Philippines Shipping, Inc. vs. Kemper Insurance Co.

Respondent Kemper Insurance Company is a foreign insurer based in Illinois, USA, not licensed to do business in the Philippines except for isolated transactions.
Petitioner Cosco Philippines Shipping, Inc. is a domestic shipping company organized under Philippine law.
In 1998, respondent insured a shipment of imported frozen boneless beef owned by Genosi, Inc., shipped from Brisbane, Australia to the Philippines via the petitioner’s reefer containers.
Upon arrival in Manila, part of the shipment was rejected by Genosi, Inc. due to spoilage allegedly caused by temperature fluctuations in petitioner’s reefer containers.
Genosi filed a claim against both respondent insurer and petitioner shipping company. The claim was investigated by McLarens Chartered, which recommended settlement amounting to $64,492.58. Genosi accepted this settlement.
Respondent paid Genosi the settled amount and secured a Loss and Subrogation Receipt whereby Genosi acknowledged full satisfaction and subrogated its claims to respondent.
Respondent demanded payment from petitioner for the amount paid to Genosi, but petitioner refused.

Respondent filed a complaint for insurance loss and damages against petitioner before the RTC, docketed as Civil Case No. 99-95561, claiming $64,492.58 plus interest, attorney’s fees, and costs.
Petitioner filed an answer alleging:

Respondent had no capacity to sue, lacking a license to do business in the Philippines;
The claim was barred by prescription and/or laches;
The loss was due to causes beyond petitioner’s control or due to other parties’ fault;
The shipment was properly handled and delivered in good order and temperature conditions.

During pre-trial, respondent’s counsel offered exhibits; petitioner’s counsel delayed marking exhibits.
Petitioner later filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the complaint was filed by Atty. Rodolfo Lat who failed to show authority to sign the certification against forum shopping, violating Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court.

The RTC granted the Motion to Dismiss for failure to comply with the mandatory requirement that the certificate against forum shopping be signed by the principal party or a duly authorized representative, and respondent’s counsel had no special power of attorney (SPA) to sign it.
Respondent’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the RTC.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC, ruling that while the certificate is mandatory and must be signed by the principal party or an authorized representative, the circumstances warranted liberal application of the rules and ordered remand for further proceedings.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration before the CA was denied.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court.

The SPA appointing Atty. Lat was signed by respondent’s underwriter Brent Healy, who lacked authorization from respondent’s board of directors;
Powers granted to Atty. Lat referred only to pre-trial representation without authority to sign certification against forum shopping.

Respondent failed to submit any board resolution or secretary’s certificate authorizing Atty. Lat to sign the certification on its behalf.
Respondent admitted initial failure to attach proof of authority but later submitted an authenticated SPA.
Respondent argued petitioner was barred by laches from questioning defects in the certificate.

Whether Atty. Rodolfo Lat was duly authorized by respondent Kemper Insurance Company to sign the certification against forum shopping on its behalf.
Whether failure to submit proof of authority to sign such certification warrants dismissal of the complaint.
Whether petitioner Cosco Philippines Shipping, Inc. is estopped by laches from raising the issue of jurisdiction due to lack of authority of respondent’s counsel.