Republic of the Philippines Supreme Court Baguio City THIRD DIVISION COSCO INC$# PHI IPPIN!

S SHIPPIN"# "$R$ No$ -./011 Present2 V! *SCO# 3R$# 3$# Chairperson# P!R* T*# *B*D# (!NDO4*# an, P!R *S%B!RN*B!# 33$ Promulgate,2

Petitioner#

% &ersus %

'!(P!R INS)R*NC! CO(P*N+# Respon,ent$

*pril 56# 57-5 8%%%%%%%%%% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%8 D!CISION

P!R* T*# 3$2 This is a petition for re&ie9 on certiorari un,er Rule 0: of the Rules of Court see;ing to re&erse an, set asi,e the Decision<-=> an, Resolution<5=> of the Court of *ppeals ?C*@# in C*%"$R$ CV No$ .:1/:# entitle, 'emper Insurance Company &$ Cosco Philippines Shipping# Inc$ The C* Decision re&erse, an, set asi,e the Or,er ,ate, (arch 55# 5775 of the Regional Trial Court ?RTC@# Branch 1# (anila# 9hich grante, the (otion to Dismiss file, by petitioner Cosco Philippines Shipping# Inc$# an, or,ere, that the case be reman,e, to the trial court for further procee,ings$ The antece,ents are as follo9s2 Respon,ent 'emper Insurance Company is a foreign insurance company base, in Illinois# )nite, States of *merica ?)S*@ 9ith no license to engage in business in the Philippines# as it is not ,oing business in the Philippines# e8cept in isolate, transactionsA 9hile petitioner is a ,omestic shipping company organiBe, in accor,ance 9ith Philippine

la9s$ In -//1# respon,ent insure, the shipment of importe, froBen boneless beef ?o9ne, by "enosi# Inc$@# 9hich 9as loa,e, at a port in Brisbane# *ustralia# for shipment to "enosi# Inc$ ?the importer%consignee@ in the Philippines$ Ho9e&er# upon arri&al at the (anila port# a portion of the shipment 9as reCecte, by "enosi# Inc$ by reason of spoilage arising from the allege, temperature fluctuations of petitionerDs reefer containers$ Thus# "enosi# Inc$ file, a claim against both petitioner shipping company an, respon,ent 'emper Insurance Company$ The claim 9as referre, to (c arens Chartere, for in&estigation# e&aluation# an, a,Custment of the claim$ *fter processing the claim ,ocuments# (c arens Chartere, recommen,e, a settlement of the claim in the amount of EF0#0/5$:1# 9hich "enosi# Inc$ ?the consignee%insure,@ accepte,$ Thereafter# respon,ent pai, the claim of "enosi# Inc$ ?the insure,@ in the amount of EF0#0/5$:1$ ConseGuently# "enosi# Inc$# through its "eneral (anager# *&elino S$ (angahas# 3r$# e8ecute, a oss an, Subrogation Receipt<6=> ,ate, September 55# -///# stating that "enosi# Inc$ recei&e, from respon,ent the amount of EF0#0/5$:1 as the full an, final satisfaction compromise# an, ,ischarges respon,ent of all claims for losses an, e8penses sustaine, by the property insure,# un,er &arious policy numbers# ,ue to spoilage brought about by machinery brea;,o9n 9hich occurre, on October 5:# No&ember . an, -7# an, December :# -0# an, -1# -//1A an,# in consi,eration thereof# subrogates respon,ent to the claims of "enosi# Inc$ to the e8tent of the sai, amount$ Respon,ent then ma,e ,eman,s upon petitioner# but the latter faile, an, refuse, to pay the sai, amount$ Hence# on October 51# -///# respon,ent file, a Complaint for Insurance oss an, Damages<0=> against petitioner before the trial court# ,oc;ete, as Ci&il Case No$ //% /::F-# entitle, 'emper Insurance Company &$ Cosco Philippines Shipping# Inc$ Respon,ent allege, that ,espite repeate, ,eman,s to pay an, settle the total amount of )SEF0#0/5$:1# representing the &alue of the loss# petitioner faile, an, refuse, to pay the same# thereby causing ,amage an, preCu,ice to respon,ent in the amount of )SEF0#0/5$:1A that the loss an, ,amage it sustaine, 9as ,ue to the fault an, negligence of petitioner# specifically# the fluctuations in the temperature of the reefer container beyon, the reGuire, setting 9hich 9as cause, by the brea;,o9n in the electronics controller assemblyA that ,ue to the unCustifie, failure an, refusal to pay its Cust an, &ali,

claims# petitioner shoul, be hel, liable to pay interest thereon at the legal rate from the ,ate of ,eman,A an, that ,ue to the unCustifie, refusal of the petitioner to pay the sai, amount# it 9as compelle, to engage the ser&ices of a counsel 9hom it agree, to pay 5:H of the 9hole amount ,ue as attorneyDs fees$ Respon,ent praye, that after ,ue hearing# Cu,gment be ren,ere, in its fa&or an, that petitioner be or,ere, to pay the amount of )SEF0#0/5$:1# or its eGui&alent in Philippine currency at the pre&ailing foreign e8change rate# or a total of P5#:/0#:-6$77# 9ith interest thereon at the legal rate from ,ate of ,eman,# 5:H of the 9hole amount ,ue as attorneyDs fees# an, costs$ In its *ns9er<:=> ,ate, No&ember 5/# -///# petitioner insiste,# among others# that respon,ent ha, no capacity to sue since it 9as ,oing business in the Philippines 9ithout the reGuire, licenseA that the complaint has prescribe, an,Ior is barre, by lachesA that no timely claim 9as file,A that the loss or ,amage sustaine, by the shipments# if any# 9as ,ue to causes beyon, the carrierDs control an, 9as ,ue to the inherent nature or insufficient pac;ing of the shipments an,Ior fault of the consignee or the hire, ste&e,ores or arrastre operator or the fault of persons 9hose acts or omissions cannot be the basis of liability of the carrierA an, that the subCect shipment 9as ,ischarge, un,er reGuire, temperature an, 9as complete# seale,# an, in goo, or,er con,ition$ During the pre%trial procee,ings# respon,entDs counsel proffere, an, mar;e, its e8hibits# 9hile petitionerDs counsel manifeste, that he 9oul, mar; his clientDs e8hibits on the ne8t sche,ule, pre%trial$ Ho9e&er# on No&ember 1# 577-# petitioner file, a (otion to Dismiss#<F=> conten,ing that the same 9as file, by one *tty$ Ro,olfo *$ at# 9ho faile, to sho9 his authority to sue an, sign the correspon,ing certification against forum shopping$ It argue, that *tty$ atDs act of signing the certification against forum shopping 9as a clear &iolation of Section :# Rule . of the -//. Rules of Court$ In its Or,er<.=> ,ate, (arch 55# 5775# the trial court grante, petitionerDs (otion to Dismiss an, ,ismisse, the case 9ithout preCu,ice# ruling that it is man,atory that the certification must be e8ecute, by the petitioner himself# an, not by counsel$ Since respon,entDs counsel ,i, not ha&e a Special Po9er of *ttorney ?SP*@ to act on its behalf# hence# the certification against forum shopping e8ecute, by sai, counsel 9as fatally ,efecti&e an, constitute, a &ali, cause for ,ismissal of the complaint$ Respon,entDs (otion for Reconsi,eration<1=> 9as ,enie, by the trial court in an Or,er</=> ,ate, 3uly /# 5775$

On appeal by respon,ent# the C*# in its Decision<-7=> ,ate, (arch 56# 577.# re&erse, an, set asi,e the trial courtDs or,er$ The C* rule, that the reGuire, certificate of non%forum shopping is man,atory an, that the same must be signe, by the plaintiff or principal party concerne, an, not by counselA an, in case of corporations# the physical act of signing may be performe, in behalf of the corporate entity by specifically authoriBe, in,i&i,uals$ Ho9e&er# the C* pointe, out that the factual circumstances of the case 9arrante, the liberal application of the rules an,# as such# or,ere, the reman, of the case to the trial court for further procee,ings$ PetitionerDs (otion for Reconsi,eration<--=> 9as later ,enie, by the C* in the Resolution<-5=> ,ate, September 6# 577.$ Hence# petitioner ele&ate, the case to this Court &ia Petition for Re&ie9 on Certiorari un,er Rule 0: of the Rules of Court# 9ith the follo9ing issues2 TH! CO)RT OJ *PP!* S S!RIO)S + !RR!D IN R) IN" TH*T *TT+$ RODO JO *T K*S PROP!R + *)THORI4!D B+ TH! R!SPOND!NT TO SI"N TH! C!RTIJIC*T! *"*INST JOR)( SHOPPIN" D!SPIT! TH! )NDISP)T!D J*CTS TH*T2 *@ TH! P!RSON KHO !L!C)T!D TH! SP!CI* POK!R OJ *TTORN!+ ?SP*@ *PPOINTIN" *TT+$ *T *S R!SPOND!NTDS *TTORN!+%IN%J*CT K*S (!R! + *N )ND!RKRIT!R OJ TH! R!SPOND!NT KHO H*S NOT SHOKN PROOJ TH*T H! K*S *)THORI4!D B+ TH! BO*RD OJ DIR!CTORS OJ R!SPOND!NT TO DO SO$ B@ TH! POK!RS "R*NT!D TO *TT+$ *T R!J!R TO <TH! *)THORIT+ TO R!PR!S!NT D)RIN" TH!= PR!%TRI* <ST*"!= *ND DO NOT COV!R TH! SP!CIJIC POK!R TO SI"N TH! C!RTIJIC*T!$<-6=>

Petitioner allege, that respon,ent faile, to submit any boar, resolution or secretaryDs certificate authoriBing *tty$ at to institute the complaint an, sign the certificate of non%forum shopping on its behalf$ Petitioner submits that since respon,ent is a Curi,ical entity# the signatory in the complaint must sho9 proof of his or her authority to sign on behalf of the corporation$ Jurther# the SP*<-0= ,ate, (ay --# 5777# submitte, by *tty$ at# 9hich 9as notariBe, before the Consulate "eneral of Chicago# Illinois#

)S*# allege,ly authoriBing him to represent respon,ent in the pre%trial an, other stages of the procee,ings 9as signe, by one Brent Healy ?respon,entDs un,er9riter@# 9ho lac;s authoriBation from its boar, of ,irectors$ In its Comment# respon,ent a,mitte, that it faile, to attach in the complaint a concrete proof of *tty$ atDs authority to e8ecute the certificate of non%forum shopping on its behalf$ Ho9e&er# there 9as subseGuent compliance as respon,ent submitte, an authenticate, SP* empo9ering *tty$ at to represent it in the pre%trial an, all stages of the procee,ings$ Jurther# it a&erre, that petitioner is barre, by laches from Guestioning the purporte, ,efect in respon,entDs certificate of non%forum shopping$ The main issue in this case is 9hether *tty$ at 9as properly authoriBe, by respon,ent to sign the certification against forum shopping on its behalf$ The petition is meritorious$ Ke ha&e consistently hel, that the certification against forum shopping must be signe, by the principal parties$<-:= If# for any reason# the principal party cannot sign the petition# the one signing on his behalf must ha&e been ,uly authoriBe,$<-F= Kith respect to a corporation# the certification against forum shopping may be signe, for an, on its behalf# by a specifically authoriBe, la9yer 9ho has personal ;no9le,ge of the facts reGuire, to be ,isclose, in such ,ocument$<-.= * corporation has no po9er# e8cept those e8pressly conferre, on it by the Corporation Co,e an, those that are implie, or inci,ental to its e8istence$ In turn# a corporation e8ercises sai, po9ers through its boar, of ,irectors an,Ior its ,uly authoriBe, officers an, agents$ Thus# it has been obser&e, that the po9er of a corporation to sue an, be sue, in any court is lo,ge, 9ith the boar, of ,irectors that e8ercises its corporate po9ers$ In turn# physical acts of the corporation# li;e the signing of ,ocuments# can be performe, only by natural persons ,uly authoriBe, for the purpose by corporate by%la9s or by a specific act of the boar, of ,irectors$<-1= In Philippine *irlines# Inc$ &$ Jlight *tten,ants an, Ste9ar,s *ssociation of the Philippines ?J*S*P@#<-/= 9e rule, that only in,i&i,uals &este, 9ith authority by a &ali, boar,resolution may sign the certificate of non%forum shopping on behalf of a corporation$ Ke also reGuire, proof of such authority to be presente,$ The petition is subCect to ,ismissal if acertification 9as submitte, unaccompanie, by proof of the signatoryDs authority$

In the present case# since respon,ent is a corporation# the certification must be e8ecute, by an officer or member of the boar, of ,irectors or by one 9ho is ,uly authoriBe, by a resolution of the boar, of ,irectorsA other9ise# the complaint 9ill ha&e to be ,ismisse,$<57= The lac; of certification against forum shopping is generally not curable by mere amen,ment of the complaint# but shall be a cause for the ,ismissal of the case 9ithout preCu,ice$<5-= The same rule applies to certifications against forum shopping signe, by a person on behalf of a corporation 9hich are unaccompanie, by proof that sai, signatory is authoriBe, to file the complaint on behalf of the corporation$ <55= There is no proof that respon,ent# a pri&ate corporation# authoriBe, *tty$ at# through a boar, resolution# to sign the &erification an, certification against forum shopping on its behalf$ *ccor,ingly# the certification against forum shopping appen,e, to the complaint is fatally ,efecti&e# an, 9arrants the ,ismissal of respon,entDs complaint for Insurance oss an, Damages ?Ci&il Case No$ //%/::F-@ against petitioner$ In Republic &$ Coalbrine International Philippines# Inc$#<56= the Court cite, instances 9herein the lac; of authority of the person ma;ing the certification of non% forum shopping 9as reme,ie, through subseGuent compliance by the parties therein$ Thus# <9=hile there 9ere instances 9here 9e ha&e allo9e, the filing of a certification against non%forum shopping by someone on behalf of a corporation 9ithout the accompanying proof of authority at the time of its filing# 9e ,i, so on the basis of a special circumstance or compelling reason$ (oreo&er# there 9as a subseGuent compliance by the submission of the proof of authority attesting to the fact that the person 9ho signe, the certification 9as ,uly authoriBe,$ In China Ban;ing Corporation &$ (on,ragon International Philippines# Inc$# the C* ,ismisse, the petition file, by China Ban;# since the latter faile, to sho9 that its ban; manager 9ho signe, the certification against non%forum shopping 9as authoriBe, to ,o so$ Ke re&erse, the C* an, sai, that the case be ,eci,e, on the merits ,espite the failure to attach the reGuire, proof of authority# since the boar, resolution 9hich 9as subseGuently attache, recogniBe, the pre%e8isting status of the ban; manager as an authoriBe, signatory$ In *baya In&estments Corporation &$ (erit Philippines# 9here

the complaint before the (etropolitan Trial Court of (anila 9as institute, by petitionerDs Chairman an, Presi,ent# Ofelia *baya# 9ho signe, the &erification an, certification against non%forum shopping 9ithout proof of authority to sign for the corporation# 9e also rela8e, the rule$ Ke ,i, so ta;ing into consi,eration the merits of the case an, to a&oi, a re%litigation of the issues an, further ,elay the a,ministration of Custice# since the case ha, alrea,y been ,eci,e, by the lo9er courts on the merits$ (oreo&er# *bayaDs authority to sign the certification 9as ratifie, by the Boar,$<50=

Contrary to the C*Ds fin,ing# the Court fin,s that the circumstances of this case ,o not necessitate the rela8ation of the rules$ There 9as no proof of authority submitte,# e&en belate,ly# to sho9 subseGuent compliance 9ith the reGuirement of the la9$ Neither 9as there a copy of the boar, resolution or secretaryDs certificate subseGuently submitte, to the trial court that 9oul, attest to the fact that *tty$ at 9as in,ee, authoriBe, to file sai, complaint an, sign the &erification an, certification against forum shopping# nor ,i, respon,ent satisfactorily e8plain 9hy it faile, to comply 9ith the rules$ Thus# there e8ists no cogent reason for the rela8ation of the rule on this matter$ Obe,ience to the reGuirements of proce,ural rules is nee,e, if 9e are to e8pect fair results therefrom# an, utter ,isregar, of the rules cannot Custly be rationaliBe, by har;ing on the policy of liberal construction$<5:= (oreo&er# the SP* ,ate, (ay --# 5777# submitte, by respon,ent allege,ly authoriBing *tty$ at to appear on behalf of the corporation# in the pre%trial an, all stages of the procee,ings# signe, by Brent Healy# 9as fatally ,efecti&e an, ha, no e&i,entiary &alue$ It faile, to establish HealyDs authority to act in behalf of respon,ent# in &ie9 of the absence of a resolution from respon,entDs boar, of ,irectors or secretaryDs certificate pro&ing the same$ i;e any other corporate act# the po9er of Healy to name# constitute# an, appoint *tty$ at as respon,entDs attorney%in%fact# 9ith full po9ers to represent respon,ent in the procee,ings# shoul, ha&e been e&i,ence, by a boar, resolution or secretaryDs certificate$ Respon,entDs allegation that petitioner is estoppe, by laches from raising the ,efect in respon,entDs certificate of non%forum shopping ,oes not hol, 9ater$ In Tamon,ong &$ Court of *ppeals#<5F= 9e hel, that if a complaint is file, for an, in behalf of the plaintiff 9ho is not authoriBe, to ,o so# the complaint is not ,eeme, file,$ *n unauthoriBe, complaint ,oes not pro,uce any legal effect$ Hence# the court shoul,

,ismiss the complaint on the groun, that it has no Curis,iction o&er the complaint an, the plaintiff$<5.= *ccor,ingly# since *tty$ at 9as not ,uly authoriBe, by respon,ent to file the complaint an, sign the &erification an, certification against forum shopping# the complaint is consi,ere, not file, an, ineffectual# an,# as a necessary conseGuence# is ,ismissable ,ue to lac; of Curis,iction$ 3uris,iction is the po9er 9ith 9hich courts are in&este, for a,ministering CusticeA that is# for hearing an, ,eci,ing cases$ In or,er for the court to ha&e authority to ,ispose of the case on the merits# it must acGuire Curis,iction o&er the subCect matter an, the parties$ Courts acGuire Curis,iction o&er the plaintiffs upon the filing of the complaint# an, to be boun, by a ,ecision# a party shoul, first be subCecte, to the courtDs Curis,iction$ <51= Clearly# since no &ali, complaint 9as e&er file, 9ith the RTC# Branch 1# (anila# the same ,i, not acGuire Curis,iction o&er the person of respon,ent$ Since the court has no Curis,iction o&er the complaint an, respon,ent# petitioner is not estoppe, from challenging the trial courtDs Curis,iction# e&en at the pre%trial stage of the procee,ings$ This is so because the issue of Curis,iction may be raise, at any stage of the procee,ings# e&en on appeal# an, is not lost by 9ai&er or by estoppel$<5/= In Regala,o &$ "o#<67=> the Court hel, that laches shoul, be clearly present for the Sibonghanoy<6-=> ,octrine to apply# thus2 aches is ,efine, as the Mfailure or neglect for an unreasonable an, une8plaine, length of time# to ,o that 9hich# by e8ercising ,ue ,iligence# coul, or shoul, ha&e been ,one earlier# it is negligence or omission to assert a right 9ithin a reasonable length of time# 9arranting a presumption that the party entitle, to assert it either has aban,one, it or ,ecline, to assert it$N The ruling in People &$ Regalario that 9as base, on the lan,mar; ,octrine enunciate, in TiCam &$ Sibonghanoy on the matter of Curis,iction by estoppel is the e8ception rather than the rule$!stoppel by laches may be in&o;e, to bar the issue of lac; of Curis,iction only in cases in 9hich the factual milieu is analogous to that in the cite, case$ In such contro&ersies# laches shoul, ha&e been clearly presentA that is# lac; of Curis,iction must ha&e been raise, so belate,ly as to 9arrant the presumption that the party entitle, to assert it ha, aban,one, or ,ecline, to assert it$ In Sibonghanoy# the ,efense of lac; of Curis,iction 9as raise, for the first time in a motion to ,ismiss file, by the Surety almost -: years

after the Guestione, ruling ha, been ren,ere,$ *t se&eral stages of the procee,ings# in the court a Guo as 9ell as in the Court of *ppeals# the Surety in&o;e, the Curis,iction of the sai, courts to obtain affirmati&e relief an, submitte, its case for final a,Cu,ication on the merits$ It 9as only 9hen the a,&erse ,ecision 9as ren,ere, by the Court of *ppeals that it finally 9o;e up to raise the Guestion of Curis,iction$<65=>

The factual setting atten,ant in Sibonghanoy is not similar to that of the present case so as to ma;e it fall un,er the ,octrine of estoppel by laches$ Here# the trial courtDs Curis,iction 9as Guestione, by the petitioner ,uring the pre%trial stage of the procee,ings# an, it cannot be sai, that consi,erable length of time ha, elapse, for laches to attach$ KH!R!JOR!# the petition is "R*NT!D$ The Decision an, the Resolution of the Court of *ppeals# ,ate, (arch 56# 577. an, September 6# 577.# respecti&ely# in C*%"$R$ CV No$ .:1/: are R!V!RS!D an, S!T *SID!$ The Or,ers of the Regional Trial Court# ,ate, (arch 55# 5775 an, 3uly /# 5775# respecti&ely# in Ci&il Case No$ //%/::F-# areR!INST*T!D$ SO ORD!R!D$

DIOSD*DO ($ P!R* T* *ssociate 3ustice K! CONC)R2

PR!SBIT!RO 3$ V! *SCO# 3R$ *ssociate 3ustice Chairperson

ROB!RTO *$ *B*D *ssociate 3ustice

3OS! C*TR* (!NDO4* *ssociate 3ustice

!ST! * ($ P!R *S%B!RN*B! *ssociate 3ustice

*TT!ST*TION I attest that the conclusions in the abo&e Decision ha, been reache, in consultation before the case 9as assigne, to the 9riter of the opinion of the CourtOs Di&ision$

PR!SBIT!RO 3$ V! *SCO# 3R$ *ssociate 3ustice Thir, Di&ision# Chairperson C!RTIJIC*TION Pursuant to Section -6# *rticle VIII of the Constitution an, the Di&ision ChairpersonOs *ttestation# I certify that the conclusions in the abo&e Decision 9ere reache, in consultation before the case 9as assigne, to the 9riter of the opinion of the CourtOs Di&ision$

R!N*TO C$ CORON* Chief 3ustice

> <-=> Penne, by *ssociate 3ustice 3apar B$ Dimaampao# 9ith *ssociate 3ustices Conra,o ($ VasGueB# 3r$ an, (ario $ "uariPa III# concurringA rollo# pp$ 6-%61$ <5=> I,$ at 07%0-$ <6=> Recor,s# p$ -7$ <0=> I,$ at -%0$ <:=> I,$ at -6%-/$

<F=> I,$ at --/%-55$ <.=> I,$ at -0-%-05$ <1=> I,$ at -0:%-0.$ </=> I,$ at -.-%-.5$ <-7=> C* rollo# pp$ .0%1-$ <--=> I,$ at 1F%/:$ <-5=> I,$ at -7:%-7F$ <-6=> Rollo# p$ -:$ <-0=> Recor,s# pp$ -01%-0/$ <-:=> *thena Computers# Inc$ &$ Reyes# "$R$ No$ -:F/7:# September :# 577.# :65 SCR* 606# 6:-A De&elopment Ban; of the Philippines &$ Court of *ppeals# "$R$ No$ -0.5-.# October .# 5770# 007 SCR* 577# 57:$ <-F=> !agle Ri,ge "olf Q Country Club &$ Court of *ppeals# "$R$ No$ -.1/1/# (arch -1# 57-7# F-F SCR* --F# -65$ <-.=> *thena Computers# Inc$ &$ Reyes# "$R$ No$ -:F/7:# September :# 577.# :65 SCR* 606# 6:-$ <-1=> Republic &$ Coalbrine International Philippines# Inc$# "$R$ No$ -F-161# *pril .# 57-7# F-. SCR* 0/-# 0/1$ <-/=> "$R$ No$ -06711# 3anuary 50# 577F# 0./ SCR* F7:# F71$ <57=> Tamon,ong &$ Court of *ppeals# "$R$ No$ -:16/.# No&ember 5F# 5770# 000 SCR* :7/# :57%:5-$ <5-=> Section : of Rule . of the -//. Rules of Ci&il Proce,ure pro&i,es2 S!C$ :$ Certification against forum shopping$ R The plaintiff or principal party shall certify un,er oath in the complaint or other initiatory plea,ing asserting a claim for relief# or in a s9orn certification anne8e, thereto an, simultaneously file, there9ith2 ?a@ that he has not theretofore commence, any action or file, any claim in&ol&ing the same issues in any court# tribunal or Guasi%Cu,icial agency an,# to the best of his ;no9le,ge# no such other action or claim is pen,ing thereinA ?b@ if there is such other pen,ing action or claim# a complete statement of the present status thereofA an, ?c@ if he shoul, thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been file, or is pen,ing# he shall report that fact 9ithin fi&e ?:@ ,ays therefrom to the court 9herein his aforesai, complaint or initiatory plea,ing has been file,$ Jailure to comply 9ith the foregoing reGuirements shall not be curable by mere amen,ment of the complaint or other initiatory plea,ing but shall be cause for the ,ismissal of the case 9ithout preCu,ice# unless other9ise pro&i,e,# upon motion an, after hearing$ The submission of a false certification or non%compliance 9ith any of the un,erta;ings therein shall constitute in,irect contempt of court# 9ithout preCu,ice to the correspon,ing a,ministrati&e an, criminal actions$ If the acts of the party or his counsel clearly constitute 9illful an, ,eliberate forum shopping# the same shall be groun, for summary ,ismissal 9ith preCu,ice an, shall constitute ,irect contempt# as 9ell as a cause for a,ministrati&e sanctions$ ?!mphasis supplie,$@ <55=> Republic &$ Coalbrine International Philippines# Inc$# supra note -1# at 0//$ <56=> Supra note -1$ <50=> I,$ at :77%:7-$ ?Citations omitte,$@ <5:=> Cla&ecilla &$ Suitain# "$R$ No$ -0./1/# Jebruary 57# 577F# 015 SCR* F56# F6-$

<5F=> Supra note 57# cite, in Negros (erchantDs !nterprises# Inc$ &$ China Ban;ing Corporation# "$R$ No$ -:7/-1# *ugust -.# 577.# :67 SCR* 0.1# 01.$ <5.=> I,$ at :-/$ <51=> Per;in !lmer Singapore Pte$ t,$ &$ Da;ila Tra,ing Corporation# "$R$ No$ -.5505# *ugust -0# 577.# :67 SCR* -.7# -1F$ <5/=> Jigueroa &$ People# "$R$ No$ -0.07F# 3uly -0# 5771# ::1 SCR* F6# 1-$ <67=> "$R$ No$ -F./11# Jebruary F# 577.# :-0 SCR* F-F$ <6-=> In TiCam &$ Sibonghanoy# -6- Phil$ ::F ?-/F1@# the Court hel, that a party may be barre, by laches from in&o;ing lac; of Curis,iction at a late hour for the purpose of annulling e&erything ,one in the case 9ith the acti&e participation of sai, party in&o;ing the plea of lac; of Curis,iction$ <65=> I,$ at F6:%F6F$