Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-21-014)
Facts:
In Expertravel & Tours, Inc. (ETI) versus Court of Appeals and Korean Airlines (KAL), KAL, a foreign corporation licensed to do business in the Philippines, filed on September 6, 1999 with the Manila Regional Trial Court (RTC) a complaint for collection of ₱260,150.00, attorney’s fees, and exemplary damages. The complaint bore a verification and a certificate against forum shopping signed by Atty. Mario A. Aguinaldo, who was alleged to be KAL’s resident agent and legal counsel. ETI moved to dismiss, arguing that Aguinaldo lacked authority to execute the certification required under Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court. KAL opposed, claiming Aguinaldo was registered as resident agent with the Securities and Exchange Commission and was its corporate secretary. The RTC granted KAL extensions to submit a board resolution purportedly authorizing Aguinaldo, and on March 6, 2000 received an affidavit by Suk Kyoo Kim, KAL’s general manager, averring that a special teleconference on JCase Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-21-014)
Facts:
- Parties and Origin of Case
- Korean Airlines (KAL), a foreign corporation licensed in the Philippines, filed a complaint on September 6, 1999 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila against Expertravel & Tours, Inc. (ETI) for collection of ₱260,150 plus attorney’s fees and exemplary damages.
- The complaint’s verification and certificate against forum shopping were signed by Atty. Mario A. Aguinaldo, alleged resident agent and corporate secretary of KAL.
- Procedural History Before the RTC
- ETI moved to dismiss for non-compliance with Section 5, Rule 7 (certificate of non-forum shopping) arguing Aguinaldo lacked authority to execute it.
- KAL opposed, submitting Aguinaldo’s SEC-registered appointment and an ID card reflecting his status as KAL’s counsel.
- During hearings (Jan. 28, 2000), Aguinaldo claimed a board resolution (June 25, 1999) authorized him; RTC granted extensions to produce it.
- On March 6, 2000, KAL filed an affidavit by its GM Suk Kyoo Kim alleging a teleconference of the Board on June 25, 1999 approved the resolution but no written copy existed.
- RTC and CA Decisions
- On April 12, 2000, RTC denied the motion to dismiss, taking judicial notice of teleconferencing technology and crediting the affidavit. Reconsideration was denied on August 8, 2000.
- ETI filed petition for certiorari and mandamus before the Court of Appeals (CA). On December 18, 2001, the CA dismissed ETI’s petition, upholding the RTC’s reliance on extrinsic documents and judicial notice of teleconferencing. ETI’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
- Supreme Court Proceedings
- ETI filed a petition for review on certiorari (G.R. No. 152392), arguing:
- Compliance with Section 5, Rule 7 must appear in the complaint itself.
- Atty. Aguinaldo lacked board authorization to execute the certification.
- The alleged teleconference and resolution were unverified fabrications and not judicially noticeable.
- KAL contended teleconferencing is a known technological fact and Aguinaldo as resident agent and corporate secretary was empowered to sign the certificate.
Issues:
- Whether the CA departed from the accepted course of judicial proceedings by considering documents and judicially noticing teleconferencing to validate compliance with Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court.
- Whether Atty. Aguinaldo, as resident agent and corporate secretary, was authorized to execute the certificate of non-forum shopping required by Section 5, Rule 7.
- Whether a board resolution purportedly approved via teleconference without written record may be judicially noticed as proof of authority.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)