View full case

CHINESE YMCA OF MANILA DOWNTOWN v. REGISTER OF DEEDS

FACTS:

The case involves a dispute between Remington Steel Corporation (Remington) and Manila Downtown YMCA (YMCA) over the lease of several units in a building owned by YMCA. Remington leased ground floor units 964 and 966 and second floor unit 963 from YMCA. After YMCA terminated the lease over unit 963, Remington filed a case for the fixing of the lease period and YMCA filed an action for unlawful detainer against Remington. During the proceedings, Remington filed a petition for consignation of rentals and eventually surrendered units 964 and 966. However, Remington continued to use the units as a passageway to unit 963, keeping them padlocked and refusing to give YMCA the keys. The courts rendered decisions in favor of Remington, extending the lease period for unit 963 and ordering YMCA to provide a passageway. But the Court of Appeals ultimately ordered Remington to vacate the premises. Meanwhile, YMCA also filed separate cases for unlawful detainer against Remington for units 964 and 966. Remington claimed that it had already vacated and surrendered the units but locked the doors for self-preservation.

The case involves the dispute between Remington Industrial Sales Corporation (Remington) and the Young Men's Christian Association of Manila (YMCA) over the possession of a commercial unit. YMCA filed separate complaints for unlawful detainer against Remington before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila, seeking the eviction and payment of damages. Remington filed the appropriate motion in the consignation case, indicating their agreement with the turnover of the unit. The MeTC separately ordered Remington to vacate the premises and pay reasonable rent and attorney's fees to YMCA.

Remington appealed both decisions to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila. Civil Case No. 01-102435 was assigned to Branch 40, while Civil Case No. 03-107655 was assigned to Branch 25. The RTC reversed the respective decisions of the MeTC and dismissed the complaints for unlawful detainer. YMCA's motions for reconsideration were denied.

YMCA filed separate petitions for review in the Court of Appeals (CA). CA-G.R SP Nos. 74292 and 88599 sought the reversal of the RTC decisions. However, the CA dismissed the petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 74292 due to the failure of the signatory to show proof of authority to file the petition. YMCA filed a Motion for Reconsideration, attaching a Secretary's Certificate to prove the signatory's authority.

The CA denied YMCA's motion for reconsideration, citing the mandatory requirement of the Certification of Non-Forum Shopping to be filed together with the petition. YMCA then filed a petition with the Supreme Court, arguing that the rule does not require the authorization of the signatory to be included in the filing. Remington argued that proper authority should be shown at the time of filing, and subsequent compliance would undermine the requirements of the petition.

The pertinent provisions of Rule 42 of the Rules of Court were cited, which require a verified petition for review with a certification of non-forum shopping. The requirements are mandatory, and failure to comply is sufficient ground for dismissal. The signing of the verification and certification applies to both natural and juridical persons. A corporation exercises its powers through its board of directors or duly authorized officers and agents.

The case involves a dispute between parties who pursued simultaneous remedies in different fora. The principle that a party-litigant should not be allowed to do so is rooted in the need for orderly judicial procedure. There is a distinction between non-compliance with the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies and the prohibited practice of pursuing simultaneous remedies in different fora.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the requirement of the petitioner's signature on the Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping applies to corporations.

  2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing YMCA's petition for review for failure to attach a proof of authority of the signatory to the Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping.

  3. Whether Remington unlawfully withheld possession of the leased premises from YMCA and if YMCA is entitled to compensation for such continued occupancy.

  4. Whether or not the final Resolution dated August 31, 2007 in G.R. No. 171858, which involved a different unit but substantially the same facts and parties, is applicable to the present case.

RULING:

  1. Yes, the requirement of the petitioner's signature on the Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping applies to corporations.

  2. The Court held that while the requirement of the certificate of non-forum shopping is mandatory, it must not be interpreted too literally as to defeat the objective of preventing forum shopping. The Court found that the Court of Appeals committed an error in dismissing YMCA's petition for review for failure to attach a proof of authority of the signatory to the Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping.

  3. The Court held that Remington unlawfully withheld possession of the leased premises from YMCA despite the termination of the lease. However, since Remington had moved out from YMCA's building, YMCA is entitled to reasonable compensation for Remington's continued occupancy of the premises from July 1, 1998 to March 12, 2004.

  4. The final Resolution dated August 31, 2007 in G.R. No. 171858 is applicable to the present case. The doctrine of stare decisis et non quieta movere requires the consistent application of a principle of law to cases with substantially the same facts. Stare decisis ensures certainty and stability of judicial decisions. In this case, since the facts of G.R. No. 171858 and the present case are substantially the same, the previous ruling should govern the present case, resulting in the outright dismissal of the appeal and the application of the ruling in G.R. No. 171858 to unit 964.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A corporation has no powers except for those expressly conferred on it by the Corporation Code and those implied or incidental to its existence.

  • A corporation exercises its powers through its board of directors and/or duly authorized officers and agents.

  • Physical acts, such as signing of documents, can only be done by natural persons authorized by corporate by-laws or by a specific act of the board of directors.

  • The purpose of requiring a verification is to ensure that the allegations of the petition are made in good faith or are true and correct.

  • The rule against forum shopping prohibits a party-litigant from pursuing simultaneous remedies in different courts.

  • Non-compliance with the requirement of verification does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective, and the court may order its correction if verification is lacking or act on the pleading even if it is not verified.

  • The lack of certification of non-forum shopping is generally not curable by submission after the filing of the petition, although it is not jurisdictional.

  • The rule on certification against forum shopping may be relaxed for substantial compliance or special circumstances or compelling reasons.

  • The submission of a certificate of non-forum shopping is deemed obligatory.

  • The belated attachment of a board resolution or secretary's certificate stating that the signatory of the certification was duly authorized can be considered as substantial compliance with the requirement.

  • The requirement of a certificate of non-forum shopping is mandatory but should not be interpreted too literally as to defeat the objective of preventing forum shopping.

  • Constructive delivery of possession requires that the person to whom the delivery is made must be able to take control of the property without impediment from the person who supposedly made the delivery.

  • The trial court may award reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of leased premises after it is duly proved.

  • The fair rental value is the amount at which a willing lessee would pay and a willing lessor would receive for the use of a certain property, based on the extent, character, and utility of the property, sales and holding prices of similar land, and the highest and best use of the property.

  • Stare decisis et non quieta movere - The principle requires adherence to precedents and the consistent application of a principle of law to cases with substantially the same facts. It ensures certainty and stability of judicial decisions.

  • Like cases should be decided alike - Stare decisis follows the principle that absent any powerful countervailing considerations, cases with the same questions relating to the same event, litigated and decided by a competent court, should be decided alike.