(Digest) Cosco v Kemper

Cosco Philippines Shipping, Inc v. Kemper Insurance Company G.R. No. ######

Date promulgated

Ponente

Author’s surname

petitioners Names and titles of parties respondent Names and titles of parties s summary Kemper (a insurance corporation based in the US) sued Cosco (shipper) because of the

spoilage of Genosi Inc’s beef (consignee). Problem: Kemper’s Filipino lawyer did not attach any proof that he was authorised by Kemper to sign the Certificate Against Forum Shopping. SC: A certification against forum shopping must be signed by (1) the principal parties or (2) authorized individuals, with proof of such authority (3) If the plaintiff is a corporation, the authority must be through a valid board resolution

1

facts of the case • An insurance case. Genosi Inc (consignee) tried to ship imported beef thru Cosco (shipper) but a portion was spoiled so Genosi claimed the insurance proceeds from Kemper (insurer) which paid it. • Kemper is an insurance corporation based in the US • It instituted an action in the Philippines thru Atty Rodolfo Lat • THE PROBLEM: Atty Lat signed the Certificate Against Forum Shopping (CAFS) without showing his authority to bring suit • There was a SPA made by Brent Healy for Atty. Lat, but it also does not show that Healy was authorised by Kemper • Cosco filed a MTD, arguing that the CAFS is fatally defective • RTC: dismissed without prejudice • CA: reversed. Liberal application of the rule on CAFS.

issue

Whether the Certificate Against Forum Shopping (CAFS) is fatally defective. YES.

ratio (1) Atty Lat was not properly authorised by Kemper to sign the CAFS • Who may sign a CAFS (Rule): • (a) A certification against forum shopping must be signed by the principal parties. If, for any reason, the principal party cannot sign the petition, the one signing on his behalf must have been duly authorized. • (b) With respect to a corporation, the certification against forum shopping may be signed for and on its behalf, by a specifically authorized lawyer who has personal knowledge of the facts required to be disclosed in such document. • only individuals vested with authority by a valid board resolution may sign the certificate of non-forum shopping on behalf of a corporation… • Req’d: proof of such authority (must) be presented • Effect if there is no proof of authority: petition is subject to dismissal • EXCEPTION (Republic v Coalbrine): “special circumstance or compelling reason” + “subsequent compliance by the submission of the proof of authority “ • Applied: There is no proof that (Kemper), a private corporation, authorized Atty. Lat, through a board resolution, to sign the verification and certification against forum shopping on its behalf. Accordingly, the certification against forum shopping appended to the complaint is fatally defective, and warrants the dismissal of respondent's complaint for Insurance Loss and Damages. • Relaxation of the rule is unjustified: • there is no proof of authority submitted, even belatedly • there is no copy of the board resolution or the secretary’s certificated attesting to Atty Lat’s authority • the SPA by Healy is fatally defective (it does not show Healy’s authority to act in behalf of Kemper) (2) Cosco is not estopped by laches from raising the issue with the CAFS • Rule: if a complaint is filed for and in behalf of the plaintiff who is not authorized to do so, the complaint is not deemed filed. The court should dismiss the complaint on the ground that it has no jurisdiction over the complaint and the plaintiff. • Applied: since no valid complaint was ever filed with the RTC… the same did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of respondent… (therefore) Cosco is not estopped from challenging the RTC’s jurisdiction. 2

• Note: the issue of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal,

and is not lost by waiver or by estoppel; • Exception: estoppel by laches (Tijam v Sibonghanoy) • But Sibonghanoy does not apply here because “the trial court's jurisdiction was questioned by the petitioner during the pre-trial stage of the proceedings, and it cannot be said that considerable length of time had elapsed for laches to attach"

3