NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION V.

CA
TOPIC: CERTIFICATE OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING RULE 7, Sec. 5
DOCTRINE:
The certificate of non-forum shopping required by the SC may be signed for and on behalf of a
corporation, specifically by an authorized lawyer who was personal knowledge of the facts required to be
disclosed in the document.
Non-compliance with the SC circular on forum shopping may be relaxed and procedural defect maybe set
aside for the interest of attaining substantial justice
EMERGENCY RECIT:
A dispute arose between NSC (Company) and the NSC Union workers. The union was claiming for
productivity bonus as well as year-end incentive pay. Both parties then agreed to submit their issues to
the voluntary arbiter. The decision of the voluntary arbiter is that the claim of the Union for the productivity
bonus has no merit and on the other hand, the company is still required to pay the Union workers for their
year-end incentive pay. The union appealed the decision but it was again denied by the voluntary arbiter.
The company then filed a petition for review with the CA regarding the decision of the voluntary arbiter.
The CA dismissed the petition stating that the one who signed the certificate of forum shopping was the
companys counsel who is NOT the real party in interest. Hence, present petition of the company in the
SC. The SC held the counsel was a duly authorized representative of the company. It also take note of
the fact that the company can only exercise its power through delegation to the people who are
composed of it. The grant by the BODs authorization to Atty Padilla (Companys lawyer) of authority to
represent the company is sufficient. The certificate of non-forum shopping required by the SC may be
signed for and on behalf of a corporation, specifically by authorized lawyer who was personal knowledge
of the facts required to be disclosed in the document.
FACTS:
The case is a petition for review of the Resolution of the CA which dismissed National Steels (NSC)
petition on the ground that the verification and certificate of non-forum shopping were signed not by
petitioners but by its counsel of record
Theres a dispute between the National Steel Corporation (NSC) and the respondent NSC Monthly/Daily
Organization (Union) regarding the grant of (1) Productivity and Quality Bonus and Fiscal Year-End
Incentive Award in the company. Both parties agreed to submit the case for voluntary arbitration
Contention of NSC before the Voluntary arbiter are the following:
o The matter of granting productivity and quality bonus was discretionary on its part and depends
on its exercise of management prerogatives and assessment of production targets
o Distribution of the Fiscal Year-End Incentive Award was dependent on its corporate
performance
Contention of the Union before the Voluntary Arbiter are the following:
o The benefits were demandable because the granting of such benefits was not only provided for
by the CBA but also became the practice in the firm
o The incentive pay was not dependent on the profit situation of the company since the company
still gave out incentive pay in 1989 and 1990 despite the admission of the company of having
financial problems
Voluntary Arbiter issued a decision stating that (1) the demand of the union for a productivity and quality
bonus in 1999 has no merit and (2) the demand of the union for the distribution of the year-end incentive
award is VALID.
NSC (Company) then filed a Partial Motion for Reconsideration with respect to the award of year-end
incentive a Motion denied by the Labor Arbiter
NSC (Company) filed a petition for review with the CA a dismissed by CA since the companys petition
for review failed to the comply with the requirement of the Revised Circular and Admin Circular on forum
shopping.
CA, in its decision, said that Atty Padilla (Companys lawyer) is not the real party in interest which is not
the one required by law to certify under oath to the fact/s and/or undertakings of the petition

 NSC then filed a motion for reconsideration a denied

NSC then filed a petition in the SC
ISSUE:
1. WON the signature of the companys counsel be deemed sufficient for the purposes of the Revised and
Admin Circular on FORUM SHOPPING. YES
2. WON the grant of year-end incentive pay by the labor arbiter is proper NO
HELD/RATIO:
1. YES.
The certification of forum shopping was signed by the companys counsel. Main contention of the
company is that:
o Atty Padilla was duly authorized to represent them not only before the voluntary arbiter but also
before the CA.
o To support its claim, the Company attached in their petition before the SC a certificate
authorizing Atty Padilla as their legal counsel (this was only issued by the BOD only after their
petition to review before the CA was dismissed)
o They explained that the powers of the Corporation can only be exercised through delegation
and that thru the express authorization by NSCs BOD, Atty Padilla then was conferred with
enough authority to sign the Verification cum Certification of Forum Shopping
SC heeded the contention of the petitioners. They cited BA SAVINGS BANK V. SIA wherein they ruled
that the certificate of non-forum shopping required by the SC may be signed for and on behalf of a
corporation, specifically by an authorized lawyer who was personal knowledge of the facts required to be
disclosed in the document.
In the case, even if the certificate authorizing Atty Padilla was only submitted to the court after their
petition for review before the CA was dismissed for non-compliance with the revised and admin circular,
SC finds the petition to be valid since that specific procedural defect ma be set aside for the interest of
substantial justice
2. NO (just a side note not important to Civpro)
The award for the year-end incentive is erroneous since the voluntary arbitrator already ruled that the
mid-year incentive pay for 1993 was given by the petitioner as an advance payment of the fiscal year-end
incentive award
It is a would result in great injustice for the company to be forced to be required to pay the same
incentive pay.
PETITION GRANTED; RESOLUTION OF CA IS SET ASIDE, CLAIM FOR DISTRIBUTION OF
THE YEAR-END INCENTIVE PAY IS DELETED.