Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=81140:gr-192615-2013&catid=1566&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 02:05:33+00:00

Document:
SPOUSES EUGENE L. LIM and CONSTANCIA LIM, Petitioners, v.THE COURT OF APPEALS-Minadanao Station, HON. FLORENCIA D. SEALANA-ABBU, Presiding Judge of Branch 20, Regional Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City, and The BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Respondent.
Before the Court is the petition for review on certiorari1 by petitioners Spouses Eugene L. Lim and Constancia Lim (petitioners), filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, to assail the February 26, 2010 decision2 and the May 28, 2010 resolution3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 03103-MIN.
On January 26, 1999, respondent Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 20, Cagayan de Oro City, a complaint for collection of money with prayer for preliminary injunction against the petitioners. The verification and certification against forum-shopping attached to the complaint were signed by Francisco R. Ramos (Ramos), then BPI Assistant Vice-President and Mindanao Region Lending Head.
On May 26, 2008, the petitioners filed another motion to dismiss, this time, on the ground that there had been a fatal defect in the verification and certification against forum shopping attached to BPIs complaint. They argued that the verification and certification did not state or declare that Ramos was filing the subject complaint in a representative capacity or as an authorized officer of BPI; nor did it state that Ramos was authorized by BPIs Board of Directors to file the complaint through a board resolution made specifically for the purpose. BPI filed a comment8 on the petitioners second motion to dismiss.
Together with its comment, BPI submitted a copy of the Special Power of Attorney (SPA) signed and executed by Rosario Jurado-Benedicto (Benedicto), the Assistant Vice-President of BPI, granting Ramos the authority to represent the bank and sign the verification and certification against forum shopping on BPIs behalf. Also, it submitted a copy of the certified true copy of BPIs Corporate Secretarys Certificate showing that Benedicto was among those authorized by the banks Executive Committee to grant and extend a SPA to other bank officers to appear in court in cases where BPI is the complainant or plaintiff. BPI contended that its submissions already constituted substantial compliance with the procedural rules and should be applied in this case to facilitate and effectuate the ends of substantial justice. BPI also contended that the petitioners, by raising the issue of Ramos authority only in their May 26, 2008 motion to dismiss and after having already filed several motions in court, are now estopped from raising and are deemed to have waived this issue by reason of laches.
The RTC denied the petitioners second motion to dismiss9 and the subsequent motion for reconsideration.10 The petitioners assailed these orders of denial in the petition for certiorari11 they filed with the CA.
The petitioners moved to reconsider the assailed decision but the CA denied their motion, hence, the filing of the present petition for review on certiorari13 with this Court.
The issues to be resolved in this case are: (a) whether the CA gravely erred when it affirmed the RTC in not dismissing BPIs complaint against the petitioners due to the alleged lack of authority of Francisco R. Ramos to file the BPI complaint and sign its attached verification and certification against forum shopping; and (b) whether the Special Power of Attorney and Corporate Secretarys Certificate that BPI belatedly submitted constituted substantial compliance with the requirements under the rules on verification and certification.
We resolve to deny the present petition. The CA did not commit any reversible error in rendering its assailed decision and resolution.
The petitioners argue that the CA gravely erred in not finding that the RTC had committed graveabuse of discretion in denying their second motion to dismiss. They contend that the RTC lacked jurisdiction over BPIs complaint because Francisco R. Ramos, the bank officer who filed the complaint in BPIs behalf and who signed the verification and certification against forum shopping, did not have the authority to do so at the time the complaint was filed; and that, despite Ramos lack of authority, the RTC still acted on BPIs complaint and erroneously held that Ramos was authorized by the bank as he "was one of those enumerated in the board resolution authorized to file the case." The CA affirmed the RTC in its assailed decision and resolution.
We note that, at the time the complaint against the petitioners was filed, Ramos also held the position of Assistant Vice-President for BPI Northern Mindanao and was then the highest official representing the bank in the Northern Mindanao area.23 This position and his standing in the BPI hierachy, to our mind, place him in a sufficiently high and authoritative position to verify the truthfulness and correctness of the allegations in the subject complaint, to justify his authority in filing the complaint and to sign the verification and certification against forum shopping. Whatever is lacking, from the strictly corporate point of view, was cured when BPI subsequently (although belatedly) issued the appropriate SPA.
WHEREFORE., premises considered, we hereby DENY the present petition for review on certiorari. Costs against the petitioners.
4 In an order dated August 18, 1999; rollo, p. 56.
5 In an order dated December 6, 1999; rollo, p. 62.
6 In an order dated July 17, 2000; rollo, p. 68.
7 In an order dated March 26, 2001; rollo, p. 69.
8 Dated July 11, 2008; rollo, pp. 76-80.
9 In an order dated February 6, 2009; rollo, p. 108.
10 In an order dated June 18, 2009; rollo, pp.121-122.
11 Under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
13 Dated August 5, 2010; rollo, pp. 23-38.
14 Santiago Land Development Co. v. Court of Appeals, 328 Phil. 38, 44 (1996).
15 Lee v. People, 441 Phil. 705, 714 (2002).
17 Republic v. Coalbrine International Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 161838, April 7, 2010, 617 SCRA 491, 498.
18 The acts of an agent beyond the scope of his authority do not bind the principal unless the latter ratifies the same expressly or impliedly (see Arts. 1898 and 1910 of the Civil Code). See also Safic Alcan & Cie v. Imperial Vegetable Oil. Co., Inc., G.R. No. 126751, March 28, 2001, 355 SCRA 559, 568.
19 Manila Memorial Park Cemetery, Inc. v. Linsangan, G.R. No. 151319, November 22, 2004, 443 SCRA 377, 394.
20 G.R. No. 171231, February 17, 2010, 613 SCRA 28, 40.
21 G.R. No. 151413, February 13, 2008, 545 SCRA 10, 17-19.
24 See Millenium Erectors Corporation v. Magallanes, G.R. No. 184362, November 15, 2010, 634 SCRA 708, 713; Heirs of Olarte v. Office of the President, G.R. No. 165821, June 21, 2005, 460 SCRA 561, 566-567.
25 Robern Development Corporation v. Judge Quitain, 373 Phil. 773, 786 (1999).
26 Uy v. Land Bank of the Philippines, 391 Phil. 303, 312 (2000).
27 Oldarico S. Traveno v. Bobongon Banana Growers Multi-Purpose Cooperative, G.R. No. 164205, September 3, 2009, 598 SCRA 27, 36.
28 People v. De Grano, et al., G.R. No. 167710, June 5, 2009, 588 SCRA 550, 563.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.