Presumed authority

A person filing an action in court is required to attach to the complaint or initiatory pleading a certificate under oath: (1) that he has not theretofore commenced any action or claim involving the same issues before any other court or quasi judicial body and that no such other action is pending therein to the best of his knowledge; (2) if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of its status; and (3) if he should thereafter learn that the same action has been filed or pending, to report the same to the court within 5 days. This is known as the certificate of non-forum shopping signed by the plaintiff himself or by the person duly authorized by the Board of Directors if the plaintiff is a corporation. Failure to comply with this requirement will result in the summary dismissal of the case. But if the certificate is signed by an officer of the corporation without the corresponding authority from its Board, will it result in the dismissal? This is the issue raised and answered in this case of a travel corporation (PCT).

PCT was sued before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) by its employees’ union for unfair labor practice because it has been filling up positions left by regular employees with contractual employees who were nevertheless performing work of regular employees. The union prayed for the payment to the said contractual employees the differentials between the wages/benefits of regular employees and actual wages/benefits received by these employees.

The Labor Arbiter (LA) rendered a decision on the merits without awaiting the position paper of PCT because the latter instead first filed a motion to dismiss that the LA found was a prohibited pleading and therefore ruled that since the complainant’s allegations remain un-rebutted, they are deemed correct and valid. And so the LA found PCT guilty of unfair labor practice and ordered it to pay the differentials, as well as moral and exemplary damages. This was affirmed by the NLRC but without the award of damages.

When PCT filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals (CA), its petition was dismissed because the verification and certification of non-forum shopping was signed by its president without submitting any board resolution that she was duly authorized to sign for and in behalf of the corporation. Was the CA correct?

No. The general rule is that an individual corporate officer cannot solely exercise any corporate power pertaining to the corporation without authority from the Board of Directors. In a slew of cases however, the authority of the following corporate officers to sign the verification and certification against forum shopping is recognized even without the need of such 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 officer; and (5) an employment specialist in a labor case. These officers or representatives can sign the said verification and certification even without any board resolution because they are in a position to verify the truthfulness and correctness of the allegations in the petition.

Hence PCT’s petition before the CA should be reinstated in order to give it the opportunity to show whether grave abuse of discretion was committed by the LA and the NLRC in not allowing it to submit its position paper on the alleged violation of the CBA or unfair labor practice. Ends of justice are better served when both parties are heard and the controversy decided on the merits (PCT Travel vs. NLRC et.al. G.R. 154379, October 31, 2008).

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445.

*      *      *

E-mail at: [email protected]