Case Summary (G.R. No. 71562)
Facts of the Case
On August 6, 1997, the Court of Appeals issued a resolution denying BA Savings Bank's Petition for Certiorari on the basis that the Certification of Non-forum Shopping was improperly signed by the bank's counsel, rather than a duly authorized officer of the bank. In a subsequent Motion for Reconsideration, the bank provided a certificate from its Corporate Secretary indicating that the bank's Board of Directors had authorized their lawyers to represent them and sign necessary documents, including the Certificate of Non-forum Shopping. This Motion was also denied on October 24, 1997, as the Court maintained the requirement that only a petitioner or its authorized representative should certify under oath in compliance with the Circular.
Issue Presented
The main issues raised by the petitioner are: (1) whether the lawyers of a corporation are authorized to execute and sign the Certificate of Non-forum Shopping; (2) whether the certification by the corporation's lawyers is binding; and (3) whether the certification by the lawyers complies with the non-forum shopping requirements.
Court's Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, primarily affirming that a corporation, such as BA Savings Bank, may authorize its lawyers to execute the Certificate of Non-forum Shopping on its behalf. It noted that corporations can only act through duly authorized individuals as expressly allowed under the Corporation Code, and that signing documents is a physical act that must be performed by natural persons authorized by the corporation's bylaws or board resolutions.
Authority of Counsel
The court underscored that the bank's Board of Directors had indeed passed a resolution empowering their lawyers to act on behalf of the bank in legal matters, including signing vital documentation required for court actions. While Circular No. 28-91 typically mandates that signatories for non-forum shopping certificates be the petitioners themselves, the Supreme Court differentiated between natural and artificial persons. The Court asserted that it would not be reasonable to impose the same limitations on corporations since they cannot act autonomously without delegation.
Legal Precedent and Interpretation
The Court referenced previous decisions, including Robern Development Corporation v. Judge Jesus Quitain, which allowed legal representation through authorized counsel based on their unique fam
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 71562)
Case Overview
- The case involves a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by BA Savings Bank against a resolution of the Court of Appeals dated August 6, 1997, which denied due course to a petition for certiorari.
- The central issue revolves around the proper execution of a Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping by the bank's counsel, instead of its duly authorized representative.
Background of the Case
- The Court of Appeals ruled that the Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping attached to BA Savings Bank's petition was improperly signed by the bank's counsel, contrary to the requirements of Supreme Court Circular No. 28-91.
- A Motion for Reconsideration was subsequently filed with additional documentation, including a Certificate from the Bank's Corporate Secretary, which indicated that the Board of Directors had authorized its lawyers to represent the bank in any legal actions and to sign necessary documents.
Relevant Legal Provisions
- Supreme Court Circular No. 28-91 mandates that the petitioner must personally certify under oath to all required facts and undertakings in the Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping.
- It is emphasized that natural persons must sign this certificate, but the application of this rule to corporations is a