G.R. No.

212493, June 01, 2016 As a backgrounder, respondent Letecia Siao's husband

Sergio Siao was indebted to petitioner Gabriel Yap, Sr.
GABRIEL YAP, SR. DULY REPRESENTED BY GILBERT YAP AND Petitioners claim that the titles to the subject parcels
ALSO IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY, GABRIEL YAP, JR., AND
HYMAN YAP, Petitioners, v. LETECIA SIAO, LYNEL SIAO,
of land were in the possession of Gabriel Yap, Sr. as
JANELYN SIAO, ELEANOR FAYE SIAO, SHELETT SIAO AND collateral for the loan. In consideration of condoning
HONEYLET SIAO, Respondents. the loan, Gabriel Yap, Sr. returned the titles to Letecia
Siao on the condition that the parcels of land covered
G.R. No. 212504
by the titles would be developed into memorial lots.
CEBU SOUTH MEMORIAL GARDEN, INC., Petitioner, v. LETECIA
Respondents argued that Letecia Siao was coerced to
SIAO, LYNEL SIAO, JANELYN SIAO, ELEANOR FAYE SIAO,
SHELETT SIAO AND HONEYLET SIAO, Respondents. sign the Certificate of Agreement, rendering it null and
void.
Facts:
During the pendency of the case to the commissioner,
These consolidated cases arose from a Complaint for respondent relied on the agreement made by the
Specific Performance filed by petitioners Cebu South parties during the preliminary conference to abide by
Memorial Gardens, Inc. and Gabriel Yap, Sr., both the terms of the Certificate of Agreement. Hence,
represented by Gilbert Yap against respondents petitioners for a motion for summary judgment.
Honeylet Siao and Letecia Siao on 27 April 1999. Petitioners submitted that the trial court may render a
Gilbert Yap, in his own behalf, Gabriel Yap, Jr. and summary judgment or judgment on the pleadings
Hyman Yap joined the plaintiffs in their Supplemental based on the admitted facts. RTC held that there was
Complaint. In their Second Amended Complaint, the no admission of facts and denied the motion for
petitioners alleged that Gabriel Yap, Sr. and Letecia summary judgment. CA reversed the trial court's
Siao entered into a Certificate of Agreement where the decision and ordered its judge to render summary
parties agreed to convert the parcels of land registered judgment in favor of petitioners.
in the names of Spouses Sergio and Letecia Siao, into
In compliance with the order of CA, RTC rendered
memorial lots; to organize themselves into a summary judgment in favor of petitioner. Court of
corporation; to transfer ownership of the parcels of
Appeals, however, set aside the Summary Judgment
land to Gabriel Yap who will transfer ownership thereof on a technicality. The appellate court found that the
to the corporation; and to give advance payment to
certification against forum-shopping appended to the
Letecia Siao in the amount of P100,000.00 per month complaint is defective because there was no board
until Letecia Siao is financially stable to support herself
resolution and special power of attorney vesting upon
and her family.
Gilbert Yap the authority to sign the certification on
behalf of petitioner corporation and individual
petitioners. The appellate court added that the Certificate of Forum-Shopping but it ratified the action
procedural defects affected the jurisdiction of the court taken by Gilbert Yap in signing the forum-shopping
in that the court never acquired jurisdiction over the certificate.
case because the complaints are considered not filed
Clearly, a defect in the certification is allowed on the
and are ineffectual.
ground of substantial compliance as in this case.
Issue:
Applying the above-mentioned rule, the signatures of
Whether the certification against forum shopping is petitioners Gabriel Yap, Jr. and Hyman Yap are not
defective because it was signed by Gilbert Yap without indispensable for the validity of the certification. These
a valid board resolution. No. petitioners indeed share a common cause of action
with Gilbert Yap in that they are impleaded as officers
Ruling:
and directors of Cebu South Memorial Garden, the very
In the leading case of Cagayan Valley Drug same corporation represented by Gilbert Yap.
Corporation v. Commission on Internal Revenue,16 the
At any rate, any objection as to compliance with the
Court, in summarizing numerous jurisprudence,
requirement of verification in the complaint should
rendered a definitive rule that the following officials or
have been raised in the proceedings below, and not in
employees of the company can sign the verification
the appellate court for the first time.
and certification without need of a board resolution:
(1) the Chairperson of the Board of Directors, (2) the
President of a corporation, (3) the General Manager or
The issues and arguments posed by respondents have
Acting General Manager, (4) Personnel Officer, and (5)
already been passed upon and resolved by the Court
an Employment Specialist in a labor case. The
of Appeals. By appealing the summary judgment,
rationale behind the rule is that these officers are "in a
respondents are in effect asking the Court of Appeals
position to verify the truthfulness and correctness of
to revisit the same issues. We cannot allow this under
the allegations in the petition."
the principle of the "law of the case."
Bolstering our conclusion that the certification of non-
In any case, we affirm the summary judgment
forum shopping is valid is the subsequent appending
rendered by the trial court, as directed by the Court of
of the board resolution to petitioners' motion for
Appeals. A summary judgment is permitted only if
reconsideration.
there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and a
The Board of Directors of Cebu South Memorial moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of
Garden, through a Board Resolution, not only law. A summary judgment is proper if, while the
authorized the President of the corporation to sign the pleadings on their face appear to raise issues, the
affidavits, depositions, and admissions presented by respondents challenge the validity of the Agreement.
the moving party show that such issues are not However, respondents filed a motion for support
genuine. relying on the same Agreement that they are
impugning. In view of this admission, respondents are
Petitioners' complaint seeks for specific performance
effectively banking on the validity of the Agreement.
from respondents, i.e. to transfer ownership of the
Thus, there are no more issues that need to be
subject properties to petitioner corporation based on
threshed out.
the Certificate of Agreement. As their defense,