Public Estates Authority v. Uy 372 SCRA 180 (2001)

FACTS:

1.      Petitioner Public Estates Authority is the government agency tasked by the Bases Conversion Development Authority to develop the first-class memorial park known as the Heritage Park, located in Fort Bonifacio, Taguig, Metro Manila.

2.      On November 20, 1996, petitioner executed with respondent Elpidio S. Uy, doing business under the name and style Edison Development & Construction, a Landscaping and Construction Agreement, whereby respondent undertook to perform all landscaping works on the 105-hectare Heritage Park.

3.      The Agreement stipulated that the completion date for the landscaping job was within 450 days, commencing within 14 days after receipt by respondent from petitioner of a written notice to proceed.

4.      Due to delays, the contracted period was extended to 693 days. Among the causes of the delay was petitioners inability to deliver to respondent 45 hectares of the property for landscaping, because of the existence of squatters and a public cemetery

5.      Respondent instituted with the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission an action seeking to collect from petitioner damages arising from its delay in the delivery of the entire property for landscaping.

6.      Petitioner assails the dismissal of its petition by the Court of Appeals based on a technicality, i.e., the verification and certification of non-forum shopping was signed by its Officer-in-Charge, who did not appear to have been authorized by petitioner to represent it in the case. Petitioner moreover argues that in an earlier resolution, the First Division of the Court of Appeals gave due course to its petition. Despite this, it was the Seventeenth Division of the Court of Appeals which rendered the Joint Decision dismissing its petition.

ISSUE: Whether or not the dismissal of petitions was proper based on a technicality

RULING: Yes. Petitioner, being a government owned and controlled corporation, can act only through its duly authorized representatives

Premium Marble Resources, Inc. vs. CA: in the absence of any board resolution from its board of directors the authority to act for and in behalf of the corporation, the present action must necessary fail. The power of the corporation to sue and be sued in any court is lodged with the board of directors that exercises its corporate powers. Thus, the issue of authority and the invalidity of plaintiff-appellants subscription which is still pending, is a matter that is also addressed, considering the premises, to the sound judgment of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Therefore, the Court of Appeals did not err in finding that, in view of the absence of a board resolution authorizing petitioners Officer-in-Charge to represent it in the petition, the verification and certification of non-forum shopping executed by said officer failed to satisfy the requirement of the Rules.