Case Digest: Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. v. Alladin Transit Corp. et al.

Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. v. Alladin Transit Corp. et al.

494 SCRA 358 (2006), Third Division

Petitioner Philippine Rabbit Bus lines, Inc. (Philippine Rabbit) and respondent Aladdin Transit Corporation (Aladdin Transit) are public utilities engaged in the land transportation business. One of the buses of the Philippine Rabbit had a vehicular accident with two buses of Aladdin Transit.

As a result, the Philippine Rabbit incurred damages. A written demand for Aladdin Transit to settle the amount of damage, but was remained unheeded. Philippine Rabbit then filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a complaint for damages against Aladdin Transit and its drivers.

A motion to dismiss was filed by Aladdin Transit on two grounds one of which was that the certification of non-forum shopping attached to the complaint was signed by the plaintiff‘s counsel and not by the party itself. The RTC denied the motion to dismiss, thus Aladdin Transit filed its answer. On the scheduled pre-trial, Aladdin Transit was declared in default and Philippine Rabbit was allowed to present evidence ex parte.

The RTC held Aladdin Transit and one of its bus drivers liable for the vehicular accident. On appeal, the appellate court reversed the decision of RTC. It found that the trial court erred in not dismissing the complaint due to the defective certification of non-forum shopping; that the documentary evidence presented by Philippine Rabbit contradicted the allegations of its complaint and the testimonies of its witnesses; and that the locations of the respective damages incurred by the three buses belied its claim.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the complaint should be dismissed for failure to attach a certificate of non-forum shopping

HELD:

Sections 1 and 4 of Rule 45 of the Rules of Court require that a petition for review on certiorari filed with this Court should be verified and should contain a certificate of non-forum shopping.

The requirements are mandatory, failure to comply with which is sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition.

The requirement that the Philippine sign the certificate of non-forum shopping applies even to corporations as the mandatory directives of the Rules of Court make no distinction between natural and juridical persons.

Philippine Rabbit is, however, a juridical entity, hence, it may only exercise its right to file a suit by a specific act of its board of directors or any duly authorized officer or agent.

A corporation, such as the petitioner, has no powers except those expressly conferred on it by the Corporation Code and those that are implied by or are incidental to its existence. In turn, a corporation exercises said powers through its board of directors and/or its duly authorized officers and agents. Physical acts, like the signing of documents, can be performed only by natural persons duly authorized for the purpose by corporate bylaws or by a specific act of the board of directors. “All acts within the powers of a corporation may be performed by agents of its selection; and, except so far as limitations or restrictions which may be imposed by special charter, by-law, or statutory provisions, the same general principles of law which govern the relation of agency for a natural person govern the officer or agent of a corporation, of whatever status or rank, in respect to his power to act for the corporation; and agents once appointed, or members acting in their stead, are subject to the same rules, liabilities and incapacities as are agents of individuals and private persons.”