3. Mid-Pasig Land Development Corp. v.

Mario Tablante

Mid-Pasig Land Development Corporation v. Mario Tablante, doing business under the
name and style ECRM Enterprises, Rockland Construction Company, Laurie Litam, and
MC Home Depot, Inc.

G.R. No. 162924

Feb. 4, 2010
Rule 7

FACTS:
Mid-Pasig Land Development Corporation (Mid-Pasig) is the registered owner of a piece
of land in Pasig City, bounded by Meralco Avenue, Ortigas Avenue, Julia Vargas Avenue, and
Valle Verde Subdivision.
On Dec. 6, 1999, Mid-Pasig, represented by its Chairman and President Ronaldo
Salonga, and ECRM Enterprises (ECRM), represented by its proprietor Mario Tablante
(Tablante), executed an agreement whereby Mid-Pasig would lease to ECRM 1 hectare of the
subject land for 3 months, to be used as the staging area for the Home and Garden Exhibition
Fair. On the date of the expiration of the Lease Agreement (March 6, 2000), Tablante assigned
all his rights and interests under the said agreement to respondents Laurie M. Litam and/or
Rockland Construction Company, Inc. (Rockland) under a Deed of Assignment of the same date.
Mid-Pasig eventually learn that Tablante had executed a Deed of Lease with respondent MC
Home Depot (MC) over the same parcel of land. MC constructed improvements on the land and
subdivided the area into 59 commercial stalls which it leased to various entities. Upon the
expiration of the lease, Mid-Pasig demanded that respondents vacate the land. Final demand was
made in a letter dated Dec. 20, 2000.
Rockland filed a case for Specific Performance with the Pasig RTC to forestall the
ejectment.
Mid-Pasig then simultaneously filed for: (1) unlawful detainer against the respondents,
which was raffled to the Pasig MTC, Branch 70 and (2) a supplemental motion to dismiss
Rocklands case on the ground of litis pendentia. The motion to dismiss was denied. The denial
was questioned and eventually elevated to the SC.
On the other hand, the MTC ruled that it has no jurisdiction over the unlawful detainer
case because it held that the real issue of the case was whether or not ECRM had the right to
exercise an option to renew its lease contract. Such issue is incapable of pecuniary estimation,
thus the RTC has jurisdiction. MTC dismissed the complaint for lack of merit.
Pasig RTC Branch 160 affirmed the decision in toto.
The CA dismissed Mid-Pasigs petition for certiorari on the following grounds:

1) The verification and certification against non-forum shopping was signed by a certain Antonio
A. Merelos as General Manager of the petitioner-corporation without attaching therewith a
Corporate Secretarys certificate or board resolution that he is authorized to sign for and
on behalf of the petitioner; and

2) Lack of pertinent and necessary documents which are material portions of the record as
required by Section 2, Rule 42 of the Rules of Civil Procedure

Thus, this case.

ISSUE:
1. W/N failure to attach the Secretarys Certificate is a valid ground for the dismissal of
Mid-Pasigs case

HELD/RATIO:
1. NO, dismissal on a purely technical ground is frowned upon by the Court. (frowned
upon )
The court has recently recognized the authority of corporate officers or representatives to
sign the verification and certification against forum shopping. Thus, it is clear that the failure to
attach the Secretarys Certificate, attesting to General Antonio Mereloss authority to sign the
Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping should not be considered fatal to the filing
of petition. Moreover, the requisite board resolution was subsequently submitted to the CA
together with the pertinent documents. Considering that Mid-Pasig substantially complied with
the rules, the dismissal was unwarranted. The dismissal of an appeal on a purely technical ground
is frowned upon especially if it will result in unfairness. The rules of procedure ought not to be
applied in a very rigid, technical sense for they have been adopted to help secure, not override,
substantial justice.
After a finding that the CA erred in dismissing the petition before it, a remand of the case
is in order.

The petition is GRANTED. The assailed Resolutions of the Court of Appeals

are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. However, in view of the expiration of the lease in question
which has rendered the issue of the right of possession over the subject property moot and
academic, the main case is hereby considered CLOSED AND TERMINATED.

Prepared by: Aira Marie M. Andal