FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 250091. July 28, 2021.]
CORBAN COMMUNITY FARMS, INC., REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, ROMUALDO G. MENDOZA, petitioner, vs.REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 28, 2021which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 250091 (Corban Community Farms, Inc., represented by its President, Romualdo G. Mendoza v. Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General) — This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Court of Appeals' (CA) Decision 1 dated June 13, 2019 in CA-G.R. SP No. 158181, which affirmed the Regional Trial Court's (RTC) Order dated July 18, 2018, which treated Corban Community Farms Incorporated's (petitioner) Motion for Reconsideration as a mere scrap of paper on the ground that its President, Romualdo Mendoza (Mendoza), has no authority to sign pleadings on behalf of the corporation. 2
The petitioner argues that Mendoza is an authorized representative and there is a compelling reason to allow him to sign the motion on behalf of the corporation because its counsel of record was still suspended at that time. 3 On the other hand, the Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General, maintains that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it treated the petitioner's motion for reconsideration as a mere scrap of paper. 4
The petition is meritorious.
The Court finds that the CA erred in ruling that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it treated the petitioner's motion for reconsideration as a mere scrap of paper. In the analogous case of Bukluran ng Manggagawa sa Clothman Knitting Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 5 the Court rejected the respondent's arguments that the petition for certiorari filed before the CA was correctly dismissed as it was not signed by counsel. In that case, the Court recognized that every pleading must be signed by the party or counsel representing him. 6 Yet, the CA cannot dismiss the petition on that ground alone considering that the union is one of the petitioners and its president may sign the pleading. Verily, in the absence of a charter or by-law provision to the contrary, Mendoza, as the president of the corporation, is presumed to have the authority to act within the domain of the general objectives of its business and within the scope of his or her usual duties. 7 More importantly, the rules of procedure may be relaxed in the broader interest of substantial justice. Here, compelling reason exists to allow Mendoza to sign the motion for reconsideration on behalf of the corporation because its counsel of record was still suspended at that time.
We reiterate that it is the avowed policy of the law to accord both parties every opportunity to pursue and defend their cases in the open and relegate technicality to the background in the interest of substantial justice. 8
FOR THESE REASONS, the petition is GRANTED. The Court of Appeals' Decision dated June 13, 2019 in CA-G.R. SP No. 158181 is REVERSED. The case is REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court for a proper resolution of the motion for reconsideration on the merits with dispatch.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 9-15.
2.Id. at 155-157.
3.Id., pp. 22-46.
4.Id., pp. 191-224.
5. 489 Phil. 609, 627 (2005).
6. Rules of Court, Rule 7, Section 3.
7.Hutama-RSEA v. KCD Builders Corp., 628 Phil. 52, 61 (2010) citing People's Aircargo and Warehousing Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 357 Phil. 850 (1998).
8.Republic of the Philippines v. Sandiganbayan, 309 Phil. 488, 493 (1994).