SC’s ‘conflicting decisions’: a specific example

In his reply to Marc Leviste’s letter (“Justice system’s problem right under Sereno’s nose,” Opinion, 11/14/14), Theodore Te asked for “specifics” on the “conflicting decisions” rendered by the high court’s different divisions. He said the Court welcomes comments from the public, but he himself could not help seeming a bit sarcastic in the face of the “drools”! (“Gripe vs SC inaccurate, baseless,” Opinion, 11/25/14)

If the “assistant court administrator and chief public information officer” of the Supreme Court is not aware of any, here’s one simple specific example: One division ruled that the one signing a “certificate of non-forum shopping” on behalf of a corporation must be “specifically authorized to do so” by way of a board resolution. By the tenor of that ruling, a general authority to “file a complaint and to sign any document pertinent thereto” would not meet that requirement. Otherwise, why ever else would it bother stressing it by using the adverb “specifically”? Then, mercifully, another division ruled that such statements in a “special power of attorney” “necessarily include” the authority to sign such certification even if not “specifically” stated! Since the Court en banc has not done anything to reconcile both rulings, which one should be followed now? For more of such eyebrow-raising gobbledygook, IGM (i-Google mo) na lang!

This issue has hit us close to home. Our company’s case was dismissed by the trial court, after more than P300,000 was paid as “docket and filing fees” and other charges. The court ruled that the absence of any “specific (that word, really!) authority to certify the complaint against forum-shopping” was fatal. We appealed to the Court of Appeals which, after about six years, affirmed the dismissal. Realizing how much, much longer it might take the Supreme Court to resolve the matter (and who could tell where another division might go with that one?), we opted to just refile the case and waste no more time, paying the disgustingly high ìdocket and filing fees” again.

The public perception is not at all flattering: Each division of the Supreme Court is acting like an independent republic by itself! Not too concerned with what the other divisions may have ruled upon in their own cases, a division seems to just go about its own business and rule on issues any way it pleases! With the “conflicting decisions,” what value do they still have as “jurisprudence”? What public trust and confidence can the Supreme Court expect in its allegedly “supreme” wisdom? With due respect, the Court should really get its act together!

—MARIUS VILLAMOR CANONOY,
[email protected]