Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 113 views

    Vicar Case

    Uploaded by

    LUNA
    This case involves a dispute between Vicar International Construction and FEB Leasing over loans Vicar obtained to purchase equipment. Vicar claims it paid back more than the loan amount but FEB says Vicar still owes money. The Court of Appeals dismissed Vicar's petition due to lack of authorization for the person who signed the verification, but Vicar provided the authorization the next day. The Supreme Court ruled the Court of Appeals should not have dismissed based on a technicality and Vicar substantially complied by providing the authorization promptly.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Vicar Case

    Uploaded by

    LUNA
    113 views2 pages
    This case involves a dispute between Vicar International Construction and FEB Leasing over loans Vicar obtained to purchase equipment. Vicar claims it paid back more than the loan amount but FEB says Vicar still owes money. The Court of Appeals dismissed Vicar's petition due to lack of authorization for the person who signed the verification, but Vicar provided the authorization the next day. The Supreme Court ruled the Court of Appeals should not have dismissed based on a technicality and Vicar substantially complied by providing the authorization promptly.

    Original Description:

    disclaimer

    Original Title

    vicar case

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a dispute between Vicar International Construction and FEB Leasing over loans Vicar obtained to purchase equipment. Vicar claims it paid back more than the loan amount but FEB says Vicar still owes money. The Court of Appeals dismissed Vicar's petition due to lack of authorization for the person who signed the verification, but Vicar provided the authorization the next day. The Supreme Court ruled the Court of Appeals should not have dismissed based on a technicality and Vicar substantially complied by providing the authorization promptly.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    113 views2 pages

    Vicar Case

    Uploaded by

    LUNA
    This case involves a dispute between Vicar International Construction and FEB Leasing over loans Vicar obtained to purchase equipment. Vicar claims it paid back more than the loan amount but FEB says Vicar still owes money. The Court of Appeals dismissed Vicar's petition due to lack of authorization for the person who signed the verification, but Vicar provided the authorization the next day. The Supreme Court ruled the Court of Appeals should not have dismissed based on a technicality and Vicar substantially complied by providing the authorization promptly.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    H5_Vicar_Sergio

    Vicar International Construction vs FEB Leasing and Finances


    456 SCRA 588
    GR No. 157195 April 22, 2005

    FACTS
    A Complaint for unjust enrichment and damages, filed in the Regional Trial Court of Makati by
    herein petitioner, Vicar International Construction, Inc. (Vicar), against Respondent FEB Leasing and
    Finance Corporation (now BPI Leasing Corporation) and the Far East Bank and Trust Company. In turn,
    FEB Leasing and Finance Corporation filed a Complaint against Vicar, Carmelita Chaneco Lim and one
    John Doe, for a sum of money, damages and replevin.
    These Complaints stemmed from loans obtained from FEB by Vicar, a corporation engaged in the
    construction business, for the purchase of certain heavy equipment. In obtaining the loans, Deeds of
    Absolute Sale with a lease-back provision were executed by the parties. In those Deeds, Vicar appears to
    have sold to FEB the equipment purchased with the loan proceeds and, at the same time, leased them
    back. For the total loan of P30,315,494, Vicar claims to have paid FEB an aggregate amount of
    P19,042,908 in monthly amortizations. Nevertheless, FEB maintains that Vicar still had an outstanding
    balance of about P22,000,000, despite the extrajudicial foreclosure of sixty-three (63) subdivision lots.
    These lots, comprising an aggregate area of 20,300 square meters in Calamba, Laguna, were used by the
    corporation as additional collateral. As a consequence, the auction sale produced P17,000,000 which,
    Vicar claims, should have been applied to its loans.
    In the course of the second (replevin) case, the trial court issued several Orders pertaining to the
    possession/custody of eight (8) units of the subject equipment. In an Order, the regional trial court (RTC)
    quashed the property counter bond filed by Vicar and denied the latter’s Motion to Dismiss the
    Complaint, which was grounded on forum shopping. In an Order, the RTC denied the corporations
    Motion for Reconsideration and Motion for Voluntary Inhibition of the trial judge.
    Vicar filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals, to stop the implementation of
    the Writ of Replevin issued against the subject equipment. The Petition was, however, instantly
    dismissed by the CA in its herein assailed Resolution because the Verification and the Certification
    against forum shopping had been executed by Petitioner Carmelita V. Lim without any showing that she
    had the authority to sign for and on behalf of petitioner-corporation. The day after receiving its copy of
    the Resolution, Vicar filed an Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration and for Admission of the Attached
    Secretary’s Certificate. Nevertheless, the CA denied the Omnibus Motion, hence this petition.

    ISSUE
    Whether or not, the Court of Appeals erred in summarily dismissing the Petition for Certiorari
    due to the delay of the certification of the secretary.

    RULING
    No.
    Petitioners assert that Carmelita V. Lim was duly authorized to execute, for and on behalf of
    Vicar, the Verification and Certification against forum shopping. Attached to the Petition and signed by
    Petitioner Lim was the Verification/Certification, in which was explicitly stated the authorization and
    affirmation. Their counsel allegedly believed in good faith that the secretary’s Certificate was attached to
    the Petition. Petitioners submit that the foregoing circumstances constitute compelling reasons to justify
    setting aside the procedural defect. Further, citing Yap v. Baldado, they contend that their posthaste
    submission of the secretary’s Certificate, albeit after the filing of their Petition, constitutes substantial
    compliance with the requirements of the law. Finally, they aver that pursuant to the policy of the law to
    afford parties the fullest opportunity to establish the merits of their case, the CA should have given due
    course to their Petition.
    Further, citing several cases excusing noncompliance with the requirement of a certificate of
    non-forum shopping, the Court held that with more reason should the instant petition be allowed since
    petitioner herein did submit a certification on non-forum shopping, failing only to show proof that the
    signatory was authorized to do so. The Court further said that the subsequent submission of the
    Secretary’s Certificate, attesting that the signatory to the certification was authorized to file the action on
    behalf of petitioner, mitigated the oversight. Under those circumstances, the Court held that there was
    at least substantial compliance with, and that there was no attempt to ignore, the prescribed procedural
    requirements, except that the petition was not accompanied by a board resolution or a secretary’s
    certificate that the person who signed it was duly authorized by petitioner to represent it in the case.
    The Certificate was submitted to the CA on the day right after it had denied the Petition. Such swiftness
    of action indicates that the Resolution -- authorizing Petitioner Lim to file the Petition and execute the
    Verification and the Certification against forum shopping on behalf of Petitioner Vicar -- did exist at the
    time the Petition was filed. Such fact also lends credence to the assertion of petitioners that it was only
    due to inadvertence and oversight that they failed to attach the Secretary’s Certificate to their Petition
    for Certiorari. The Court stresses once more that technical rules of procedure should be used to
    promote, not frustrate, justice. While the swift unclogging of court dockets is a laudable objective, the
    granting of substantial justice is an even more urgent ideal. Rules of procedure are but tools designed to
    facilitate, not obstruct, the attainment of justice.

    You might also like