Case Digest: LDP MARKETING, INC., et al. v. ERLINDA DYOLDE MONTER

LDP MARKETING, INC., et al. v. ERLINDA DYOLDE MONTER

              A complaint for illegal dismissal was filed by Erlinda Dyolde Monter against LDP Marketing, Inc. (LDP) and LDP’s Vice-President-co-petitioner Ma. Lourdes Dela Peña. The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC ruled in favor of Monter. LDP filed before the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari wherein the Verification/Certification of non-forum shopping was accomplished by Dela Peña.

        The Court of Appeals, citing Digital Microwave Corp. v. CA, dismissed LDP’s petition for “failing to attach to the petition a copy of the company board resolution authorizing said Ma. Lourdes Dela Peña to sign the said Verification/Certification of non-forum shopping for and in behalf of LDP.”

        LDP filed a Motion for Reconsideration to which they attached a Secretary’s Certificate quoting a Resolution adopted by the Board of Directors of LDP during a special meeting giving authority to Dela Peña to represent the corporation in this case. The CA denied the Motion for Reconsideration.

ISSUE:

Whether or not a Petition for Certiorari should be granted despite the belated filing of a mandatory written authorization to sign the verification/certification against forum shopping

HELD:

In the more recent case of Shipside Incorporated v. Court of Appeals cited by LDP, the therein petitioner Shipside Incorporated filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with the Court of Appeals which, however, dismissed it, citing absence of proof that the one who signed the Verification and Certification of non-forum shopping, its Manager Lorenzo Balbin, Jr., was authorized to institute the petition for and in behalf of the petitioner. Shipside Incorporated filed a Motion for Reconsideration to which it attached a certificate issued by its board secretary stating that ten days before the filing of the petition, its board of directors authorized Balbin to file it. The Court of Appeals just the same denied the Motion for Reconsideration.

The Court has consistently held that the requirement regarding verification of a pleading is formal, not jurisdictional. Such requirement is simply a condition affecting the form of the pleading, non-compliance with which does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective. Verification is simply intended to secure an assurance that the allegations in the pleading are true and correct and not the product of the imagination or a matter of speculation, and that the pleading is filed in good faith.

The lack of certification against forum shopping is generally not curable by the submission thereof after the filing of the petition. In certain exceptional circumstances, however, the Court has allowed the belated filing of the certification.

In the case at bar, the merits of LDP’s case should be considered special circumstances or compelling reasons that justify tempering the requirement in regard to the certificate of non-forum shopping.