G.R. No. 179488 Case Digest

G.R. No. 179488, April 23, 2012

Cosco Philippines, Inc., petitioner

vs Kemper Insurance Company, respondent

Ponente: Peralta

Facts:

This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to reverse and set aside the decision of the CA.

Kemper is a foreign insurance company based in Illinois, USA with no license to engage in business in the Philippines. While petitioner is a domestic shipping company.

1998, Kemper insured the shipment of imported frozen boneless beef. Upon arrival in Manila port, a portion of the shipment was rejected by reason of spoilage arising from the alleged temperature fluctuations of Cosco containers.

So, Genosi (the buyer) filed a claim against both Cosco and Kemper. Thereafter, Kemper paid the claim of Genosi. Hence, in 1999. Kemper filed a complaint for insurance loss and damage against Cosco alleging that that despite the repeated demands, Cosco failed and refused to pay the value loss sustained due to the fault of Cosco's container.

In response, Cosco insisted that Kemper had no capacity to sue since it was doing business in the Philippines without the required license. Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss contending that the same was filed by Atty. Lat who failed to show his authority to sue and sign the corresponding certification against forum shopping.

2002, RTC granted the motion to dismiss saying that Atty. Lat has no special power of attorney. Motion for reconsideration was denied. On appeal by respondent, CA reversed and set aside the trial court's order, saying that the certificate for non-forum shopping is mandatory and it must be side not by the counsel but by the plaintiff or principal party concerned. CA also ordered that the case be in the RTC for further proceedings. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was later denied by the CA, hence this present petition.

Issue:

CA erred in their decision saying that Atty. Lat was properly authorized by the respondent to sign the certificate.

Held:

Petition is meritorious.

Certification of non-forum shopping must be signed by the parties or if the principal cannot sign, the behalf must be duly authorized. In case of a corporation, the lawyer assigned must have a personal knowledge of the facts.

In this case, since this is a corporation, it must show that the board of directors has duly authorized Atty. Lat. However, there is no proof that respondent authorized Atty. Lat to sign the certification.