PET PLANS, INC. AND ADRIAN V.

OCAMPO
-versusCOURT OF APPEALS
G.R. NO. 148287, November 23, 2004
FACTS:
Petitioner PET PLANS is a company engaged in the business of selling educational, pension and
memorial plans while co-petitioner Adrian Ocampo is its President. On 1995, PET PLANS
employed Jaime Abad as its Sales Operations Manager. On 1999, petitioners informed Abad thru
a letter that he is being reassigned as a Trust Manager, a position which is next lower rank than
the one he was then occupying. Abad filed a complaint for illegal dismissal/demotion before the
NLRC-RAB of Cagayan.
Labor Arbiter decided in favor of complainant and ordered reinstatement to his former position.
Petitioners appealed the decision to the NLRC, which affirmed the Labor Arbiters ruling with
modifications to the extent of backwages to be awarded. Upon the denial of motion for
reconsideration, petitioner s filed a special civil action for certiorari before the CA.
CA dismissed the petition for defective or insufficient certification against forum shopping in
that it is not signed by the principal party or by the petitioner himself as referred to by Section 5,
Rule 7 of the Rules but was signed by a certain Rolando Espino without any certification or
attachment that he was indeed authorized to sign for and in behalf of the petitioner corporation
and to bind the same.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Honorable Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion when it
dismissed petitioners civil action for certiorari on the ground that petitioners failed to comply
with the provisions of the Rules of Court on verification and certificate of non-forum shopping.
HELD:
No. The CA did not gravely abuse its discretion in dismissing the petitioners civil action for
certiorari. The applicable provisions are the following:
Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Petition for Certiorari- xxxxxx The petition
shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject
thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and a sworn
certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of Section 3, Rule 46.
Section 3, Rule 46. Contents and filing of petition; effect of non-compliance with
requirements- xxxxx The petitioner shall also submit together with the petition a sworn
certification that he has not theretofore commenced any other action involving the same issues in
the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or
agency thereof within five (5) days therefrom.
The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements shall be
sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition.
In the present case, a certain Rolando M. Espino signed the verification and certification
attached to the petition for certiorari. However, no proof was presented that he is indeed
authorized the same. As a consequence, CA dismissed the petition. Subsequent to the dismissal,
petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration attaching thereto a certificate indicating that the
Board of Directors of PET PLANS issued a resolution authorizing him to represent the
corporation in all cases filed against it, which includes authority to sign, execute and deliver

PREPARED BY: KIM MARIE M. ROQUE

Page 1

JD-4A

pleadings, agreements and documents. However, a reading of the subject resolution issued by the
BOD of PET PLANS shows that Espino is only authorized to represent PET PLANS, not its copetitioner, Ocampo. As such, Ocampo, being a petitioner in his own right, should have also
signed the verification and certification of non-forum shopping attached to the petition. In
Loquias vs Office of the Ombudsman, the Supreme Court held that the failure of one of the
petitioners to sign the verification and certificate against non-forum shopping constitutes a defect
in the petition, which is a ground for dismissing the same. In the absence of justifiable cause for
the failure to sign the certification and failure to prove that the dismissal of the petition would
seriously impair the orderly administration of justice, the Court finds that the flagrant disregard
of the party of the Rules is fatal to petitioners cause.

PREPARED BY: KIM MARIE M. ROQUE

Page 2

JD-4A