Verification, non-forum-shopping certificate without board resolution

In previous cases, the Supreme Court has held that the following officials or employees of the company can sign the verification and certification 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 Officer; and
  5. An Employment Specialist in a labor case.[1]
The rationale applied in these cases is to justify the authority of corporate officers or representatives of the corporation to sign the verification or certificate against forum shopping, being "in a position to verify the truthfulness and correctness of the allegations in the petition."[2]In the case of Powerhouse v. Rey,[3] the verification and certification attached to the petition before the CA was signed by William C. Go, the President and General Manager of Powerhouse, one of the officers enumerated in the foregoing recognized exception. While the petition was not accompanied by a Secretary's Certificate, his authority was ratified by the Board in its Resolution adopted on October 24, 2007. Thus, even if he was not authorized to execute the Verification and Certification at the time of the filing of the Petition, the ratification by the board of directors retroactively confirms and affirms his authority and gives us more reason to uphold that authority.[4]
[1] Cagayan Valley Drug Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 151413, February 13, 2008, 545 SCRA 10, 18, citing Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company v. WMC Resources International Pty. Ltd. (Lepanto), G.R. No. 153885, September 24, 2003, 412 SCRA 101, 109; Novelty Philippines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 146125, September 17, 2003, 411 SCRA 211, 217-220; Pfizer, Inc. v. Galan, G.R. No. 143389, May 25, 2001, 358 SCRA 240, 246-248; and Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 139495, November 27, 2000, 346 SCRA 126, 132-133.

[2] Cagayan Valley Drug Corp. v. CIR, supra, at 18-19.


[4] See Swedish Match Philippines, Inc. v. Treasurer of the City of Manila, G.R. No. 181277, July 3, 2013, 700 SCRA 428, 437.

Popular Posts