Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 180245 July 4, 2012

PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL AIR TERMINALS CO., INC., Petitioner,

FACTS:

In 1997, by way of a Concession Agreement, the Philippine Government awarded to petitioner

Private respondents are both foreign corporations organized under the laws of Japan, but
only respondent Takenaka Corporation is licensed to do business in the Philippines through
its local branch office.

Claiming that petitioner made no further payments after May 2002 despite continued
performance of their obligations, private respondents filed two collection suits before the
High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, Technology and Construction Court in
London, England ("London Court"), docketed as Claim No. HT-04-248 and Claim No. HT-05-
269. In both claims, respondent Takenaka Corporation was designated as the First Claimant
and respondent Asahikosan Corporation, the Second Claimant.

Ruling in favor of private respondents.

(a) defective verification and certification against forum shopping, because there was no
board resolution showing that Mr. Takeshi Kurebayashi was authorized by private
respondents to sign the verification and certification of non-forum shopping, and the special
powers of attorney executed in favor of Mr. Kurebayashi by the Executive Vice-President and
President of respondents Takenaka Corporation and Asahikosan Corporation, respectively, were not
only insufficient but also improperly authenticated since the said officers never personally appeared
before the notary public, and finally, Mr. Kurebayashi was not competent to guarantee that
respondent Asahikosan Corporation has not engaged in forum shopping, not being an employee or
member of the said corporation;

(b) forum shopping, because the Complaint was allegedly private respondents' third attempt
to file the same claim, the first attempt being private respondents' voluntary submission to the
jurisdiction of the Pasay Court in Civil Case No. 04-0876, the expropriation case filed by the
Republic of the Philippines against herein petitioner, where private respondents manifested that they
are not objecting to the taking of the condemned property (NAIA IPT3), provided that they are justly
compensated for their claims as unpaid contractors, and the second attempt having been made
before the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 166429 where private respondents moved for partial
reconsideration (in intervention) of the Supreme Court's decision affirming, with modification, the
Pasay Court's Order allowing the full release to herein petitioner of the funds deposited by the
Republic of the Philippines for the expropriation of the NAIA IPT3;

Respondent judge held that Mr. Takeshi Kurebayashi was duly authorized to represent both private
respondents noting the Special Powers of Attorney attached to the Verification and Certification
against Forum Shopping, which were executed by the representative directors of private
respondents, and accompanied by Notarial Certificates executed in Tokyo by a Japanese Notary,
giving authority to Mr. Kurebayashi to file the Complaint. Respondent judge observed that under
Articles 261 and 78 of the Commercial Law of Japan, corporations may act through their
representative directors, similar to the Executive Committee under Philippine Corporation Law.
Respondent judge held that under the principle of lex loci celebrationis, the validity of the Special
Powers of Attorney is determined by the law of the place where they were executed.

Respondent judge rejected petitioner's claim of forum shopping, holding that private respondents
simply served notice on the Pasay Court and the Supreme Court about their being unpaid
contractors. Respondent judge found that private respondents merely prayed that the said Courts
hold in abeyance the release of the funds to petitioner until such time they can enforce the London
Court Orders by virtue of a final judgment, which neither the Pasay court nor the Supreme Court
may render because the case before them was one for expropriation.

Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with the CA, alleging that the
trial court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it
refused to set another hearing for the motion to dismiss, when it denied the Motion to Dismiss and
the Motion for Production and Inspection of Documents, and the Written Interrogatories. The CA
ruled that since a hearing on the Motion to Dismiss was held on April 7, 2006 and, thereafter, both
parties filed an exchange of pleadings, then petitioner had reasonable opportunity to be heard,
which was the essence of due process. The CA concluded that the trial court did not commit grave
abuse of discretion in denying petitioner's motion to dismiss and the motion to set said motion for
hearing. However, The CA ruled that it was grave abuse of discretion for the trial judge not to grant
the motion for production and inspection of documents and written interrogatories, because Section
1, Rule 25, in relation to Section 1, Rule 23 provides that written interrogatories may be served even
before the Answer is filed so long as leave of court has been obtained, and Section 1, Rule 27
states that the motion for production of documents or things may be filed while the action is pending,
which includes the period before the Answer is filed. With regard to the quashal of the
subpoena duces tecum, the CA held that MIAA’s Motion to Quash should not have been acted upon
by the trial court because it did not contain a Notice of Hearing, making it a mere scrap of paper.

Hence, this petition for review on certiorari where petitioner alleges that the

ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA erred (1) in ruling that the Complaint is not fatally defective despite the
fact that only a Special Power of Attorney, and not a Board Resolution was attached to the
Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping.

RULING:

The Court finds the petition unmeritorious.

The issue of the Verification/Certification, the court has the power to give due course to the
complaint even with the supposed defect, if special circumstances warrant. Even
assuming arguendo, that the form used to show Mr. Kurebayashi's authority to execute the
Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping is defective, petitioner should bear in
mind that this Court may relax the application of procedural rules for the greater interest of
substantial justice.