6 MidPasig V Tablante

THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 162924. February 4, 2010.]
MID-PASIG LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION , petitioner, vs .

MARIO TABLANTE, doing business under the name and style ECRM
ENTERPRISES; ROCKLAND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY; LAURIE
LITAM; and MC HOME DEPOT, INC. , respondents.
DECISION
NACHURA , J : p
Assailed in the instant petition are the two (2) Resolutions 1 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) dated November 20, 2003 and March 22, 2004, dismissing the petition
for certiorari before it on technical grounds and denying the motion for reconsideration
thereof, respectively. ISTDAH
The background facts are as follows:

Petitioner is the registered owner of a piece of land situated in Pasig City,
bounded by Meralco Avenue, Ortigas Avenue, Doña Julia Vargas Avenue, and Valle
Verde Subdivision. On December 6, 1999, petitioner, represented by its Chairman and
President, Ronaldo Salonga, and ECRM Enterprises, represented by its proprietor, Mario
P. Tablante, executed an agreement whereby the former would lease to the latter an
area, approximately one (1) hectare, of the aforesaid land, for a period of three (3)
months, to be used as the staging area for the Home and Garden Exhibition Fair. On
March 6, 2000, the date of the expiration of the Lease Agreement, Tablante assigned all
his rights and interests under the said agreement to respondents Laurie M. Litam
and/or Rockland Construction Company, Inc. (Rockland) under a Deed of Assignment
of the same date. Petitioner eventually learned that respondent Tablante had executed
a Contract of Lease with respondent MC Home Depot, Inc. on November 26, 1999 over
the same parcel of land. Thereafter, respondent MC Home Depot, Inc. constructed
improvements on the land and subdivided the area into fty-nine (59) commercial
stalls, which it leased to various entities. Upon the expiration of the lease on March 6,
2000, petitioner demanded that respondents vacate the land. A final demand was made
in a letter dated December 20, 2000. 2
In order to forestall ejectment from the premises, respondent Rockland led a
case for Speci c Performance with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 266, Pasig
City, on January 11, 2001, compelling petitioner to execute a new lease contract for
another three (3) years, commencing in July 2000. This was docketed as Civil Case No.
68213. Petitioner moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it was
anticipatory in nature.
Consequently, on August 22, 2001, petitioner led Civil Case No. 8788 for
unlawful detainer against herein respondents, ra ed to the Municipal Trial Court (MTC),
Pasig City, Branch 70. Simultaneously, petitioner led a supplemental motion to
dismiss Civil Case No. 68213, on the ground of litis pendentia. Petitioner's motion to
dismiss was denied. The denial was questioned and eventually elevated to the Supreme
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
Court. 3
Meantime, on April 29, 2002, the MTC rendered judgment in the unlawful detainer
(ejectment) case. In the main, the trial court ruled that the issue did not involve material
or physical possession, but rather, whether or not ECRM had the right to exercise an
option to renew its lease contract. The MTC stated that, considering that this issue was
incapable of pecuniary estimation, jurisdiction over the case was vested in the RTC. The
trial court, therefore, disposed, as follows: cAISTC
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered DISMISSING the complaint for

lack of merit. In the meantime, the plaintiff is hereby ordered to pay the
defendants attorney's fees and expenses of litigation in the amount of TWENTY
THOUSAND PESOS (P20,000.00). 4
On appeal, the RTC, Pasig City, Branch 160, a rmed in toto. In its decision dated
July 10, 2003, the RTC ruled that:
Relative to the issue raised by the appellant that the lower court erred in
nding it had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case as the question
of whether or not ECRM under the provisions of the lease agreement (pars. 3 and
13) has the right to exercise an option to renew its lease contract is one incapable
of pecuniary estimation and therefore jurisdiction is vested in the Regional Trial
Court. Republic Act No. 7691 grants Metropolitan Trial Courts the exclusive
jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer. Since it has been
su ciently established under the facts obtaining that the contract of lease has
been renewed before the expiration of the lease period, and the appellant has
consented to the renewal and assignment of the lease, it necessarily follows that
the issue on whether the lower court erred in nding that it did not have
jurisdiction over the subject matter raised by the appellant, deserves scant
consideration and this court need not delve into it anymore. 5
A petition for certiorari was consequently filed with the CA.

In the assailed resolution dated November 20, 2003, the CA resolved to dismiss
the petition on the following grounds:
1) The veri cation and certi cation against non-forum shopping was
signed by a certain Antonio A. Merelos as General Manager of the petitioner-
corporation without attaching therewith a Corporate Secretary's certi cate or
board resolution that he is authorized to sign for and on behalf of the petitioner;
and
2) Lack of pertinent and necessary documents which are material

portions of the record as required by Section 2, Rule 42 of the Rules of Civil
Procedure. 6
The motion for reconsideration was denied; 7 hence, the instant petition
assigning the following errors:
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN HOLDING THAT
THE VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM-SHOPPING IN THE
PETITION FAILED TO ATTACH THE BOARD RESOLUTION SHOWING THE
AUTHORITY OF THE AFFIANT. CSIDEc
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN HOLDING THAT

THE PETITION LACKED THE PERTINENT AND NECESSARY DOCUMENTS
REQUIRED BY THE RULES.
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN DISMISSING THE
PETITION THUS EFFECTIVELY UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT, TO WIT: (a) THAT THE LEASE AGREEMENT WAS UNILATERALLY
RENEWED AND THAT PETITIONER IS ESTOPPED FROM DENYING SUCH
UNILATERAL RENEWAL; (b) THAT RESPONDENTS TABLANTE/ECRM,
ROCKLAND AND MC HOME DEPOT COULD VALIDLY OCCUPY THE PROPERTY IN
THE ABSENCE OF ANY VALID LEASE AGREEMENT CONSENTED TO BY
PETITIONER; (c) PETITIONER [IS] LIABLE FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS OF
SUIT. 8
The petition is granted.

In Cagayan Valley Drug Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , 9 the
Court had occasion to explain that:
It must be borne in mind that Sec. 23, in relation to Sec. 25 of the
Corporation Code, clearly enunciates that all corporate powers are exercised, all
business conducted, and all properties controlled by the board of directors. A
corporation has a separate and distinct personality from its directors and o cers
and can only exercise its corporate powers through the board of directors. Thus, it
is clear that an individual corporate o cer cannot solely exercise any corporate
power pertaining to the corporation without authority from the board of directors.
This has been our constant holding in cases instituted by a corporation.
In a slew of cases, however, we have recognized the authority of some

corporate o cers to sign the veri cation and certi cation against forum
shopping. In Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority v. CA , we recognized the
authority of a general manager or acting general manager to sign the veri cation
and certificate against forum shopping; . . . .
In sum, we have held that the following o cials or employees of
the company can sign the veri cation and certi cation without need of
a board resolution : (1) the Chairperson of the Board of Directors, (2) the
President of a corporation, (3) the General Manager or Acting General
Manager , (4) Personnel O cer, and (5) an Employment Specialist in a labor
case. HaECDI
While the above cases do not provide a complete listing of authorized

signatories to the veri cation and certi cation required by the rules, the
determination of the su ciency of the authority was done on a case to case
basis. The rationale applied in the foregoing cases is to justify the authority of
corporate o cers or representatives of the corporation to sign the veri cation or
certi cate against forum shopping, being "in a position to verify the truthfulness
and correctness of the allegations in the petition." 1 0
From the foregoing, it is thus clear that the failure to attach the Secretary's
Certi cate, attesting to General Manager Antonio Merelos's authority to sign the
Veri cation and Certi cation of Non-Forum Shopping, should not be considered fatal to
the ling of the petition. Nonetheless, the requisite board resolution was subsequently
submitted to the CA, together with the pertinent documents. 1 1 Considering that
petitioner substantially complied with the rules, the dismissal of the petition was,
therefore, unwarranted. Time and again, we have emphasized that dismissal of an
appeal on a purely technical ground is frowned upon especially if it will result in
unfairness. The rules of procedure ought not to be applied in a very rigid, technical
sense for they have been adopted to help secure, not override, substantial justice. For
this reason, courts must proceed with caution so as not to deprive a party of statutory
appeal; rather, they must ensure that all litigants are granted the amplest opportunity
for the proper and just ventilation of their causes, free from the constraint of
technicalities. 1 2
After a nding that the CA erred in dismissing the petition before it, a remand of
the case is in order. However, a perusal of the records reveals that this is no longer
necessary in light of relevant developments obtaining in the case at bar.
Petitioner, in its Memorandum dated October 28, 2005, alleged that respondents'
possessory claims had lapsed and, therefore, had become moot and academic.
Respondent Rockland prayed that a three-year lease period be granted to it in order
that it would be able to plan its activities more e ciently. Since the claimed "lease
contract" had already expired as of July or August 2003, there appears no reason why
respondents should continue to have any claim to further possession of the property.
13
Respondent Rockland also stated in its Memorandum dated March 16, 2006 that
it was no longer in possession of the subject property considering that:
50. In a Resolution dated 17 September 2004, in the case of "Rockland
Construction Company, Inc. vs. Mid-Pasig Land Development Corporation, et al.,"
docketed as SCA No. 2673, and the Omnibus Order dated 12 November 2004,
a rming the aforesaid Resolution, Branch 67 Pasig City Regional Trial Court
Presiding Judge Mariano M. Singzon awarded possession (albeit erroneously) of
subject property to Pasig Printing Corporation, an intervenor in the SCA case.
ECaScD
51. At present, petitioner does not have a cause of action against

herein respondent Rockland. Respondent is not unlawfully withholding
possession of the property in question as in fact respondent is not in possession
of the subject property. The issue of possession in this ejectment case has
therefore been rendered moot and academic. 1 4
This allegation was con rmed by respondent MC Home Depot, Inc. in its
Comment/Memorandum dated May 22, 2007 submitted to the Court. It stated therein
that "the passage of time has rendered the issue of possession moot and academic
with respect to respondent Rockland, as the three-year period has long been expired in
2003." 1 5 Furthermore, respondent MC Home Depot, Inc. asserts that it is in rightful
possession of the land on the strength of a Memorandum of Agreement dated
November 22, 2004 between the latter and Pasig Printing Corporation. By petitioner's
admission that while it remains the registered owner of the land, possession of the
same had been adjudicated in favor of Pasig Printing Corporation, another entity
without any contractual relationship with petitioner, on the strength of an Order from
the RTC of Pasig City. Considering that Pasig Printing Corporation has the jus
possessionis over the subject property, it granted the MC Home Depot, Inc. actual
occupation and possession of the subject property for a period of four (4) years,
renewable for another four (4) years upon mutual agreement of the parties. 1 6
WHEREFORE , the petition is GRANTED . The assailed Resolutions of the Court
of Appeals are REVERSED and SET ASIDE . However, in view of the developments
which have rendered the issue of the right of possession over the subject property
moot and academic, the main case is hereby considered CLOSED AND
TERMINATED .
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED .
Carpio, * Corona, Velasco, Jr. and Peralta, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
* Additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Jose Catral Mendoza per Special Order
No. 818 dated January 18, 2010.
1. Penned by Associate Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr., with Associate Justices Buenaventura
J. Guerrero and Regalado E. Maambong, concurring; rollo, pp. 154 and 42.
2. Rollo, pp. 71-72.

3. Docketed as G.R. No. 153751. On October 8, 2003, the Court granted the petition filed by
Mid-Pasig Land Development Corporation. The Court ruled that the Specific
Performance case pending with the RTC should be dismissed on the ground of litis
pendentia. Upon a finding that the question of possession of the subject property is the
core issue, the proper case to resolve the controversy between the parties was the
ejectment case pending with the MTC, Pasig City, Branch 70.
4. Rollo, p. 103.
5. Id. at 112.
6. Id. at 154.
7. Id. at 159.
8. Id. at 26.
9. G.R. No. 151413, February 13, 2008, 545 SCRA 10.
10. Id. at 18-19. (Emphasis supplied.)
11. Rollo, pp. 353, 470-471.
12. MCC Industrial Sales Corporation v. Ssangyong Corporation, G.R. No. 170633, October
17, 2007, 536 SCRA 408.
13. Rollo, p. 368.
14. Id. at 413-414.
15. Id. at 474.
16. Id. at 342, 472-474.

6 MidPasig V Tablante

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

6 MidPasig V Tablante

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

6 MidPasig V Tablante

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 162924. February 4, 2010.]

MID-PASIG LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION , petitioner, vs .

The background facts are as follows:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered DISMISSING the complaint for

A petition for certiorari was consequently filed with the CA.

2) Lack of pertinent and necessary documents which are material

THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN HOLDING THAT

The petition is granted.

In a slew of cases, however, we have recognized the authority of some

While the above cases do not provide a complete listing of authorized

51. At present, petitioner does not have a cause of action against

2. Rollo, pp. 71-72.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com

You might also like