Professional Documents
Culture Documents
KEMPER
G.R. No. 179488, April 23, 2012
Cosco Philippines, Inc., petitioner
vs Kemper Insurance Company, respondent
Ponente: Peralta
Facts:
This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to reverse
and set aside the decision of the CA.
Kemper is a foreign insurance company based in Illinois, USA
with no license to engage in business in the Philippines.
While petitioner is a domestic shipping company.
1998, Kemper insured the shipment of imported frozen
boneless beef. Upon arrival in Manila port, a portion of the
shipment was rejected by reason of spoilage arising from the
alleged temperature fluctuations of Cosco containers.
So, Genosi (the buyer) filed a claim against both Cosco and
Kemper. Thereafter, Kemper paid the claim of Genosi. Hence,
in 1999. Kemper filed a complaint for insurance loss and
damage against Cosco alleging that that despite the
repeated demands, Cosco failed and refused to pay the value
loss sustained due to the fault of Cosco's container.
In response, Cosco insisted that Kemper had no capacity to
sue since it was doing business in the Philippines without the
required license. Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss
contending that the same was filed by Atty. Lat who failed to
show his authority to sue and sign the corresponding
certification against forum shopping.
2002, RTC granted the motion to dismiss saying that Atty. Lat
has no special power of attorney. Motion for reconsideration
was denied. On appeal by respondent, CA reversed and set
aside the trial court's order, saying that the certificate for
non-forum shopping is mandatory and it must be side not by
the counsel but by the plaintiff or principal party concerned.
CA also ordered that the case be in the RTC for further
proceedings. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was later
denied by the CA, hence this present petition.
Issue:
CA erred in their decision saying that Atty. Lat was properly
authorized by the respondent to sign the certificate.
Held:
Petition is meritorious.
Certification of non-forum shopping must be signed by the
parties or if the principal cannot sign, the behalf must be duly
authorized. In case of a corporation, the lawyer assigned
must have a personal knowledge of the facts.
In this case, since this is a corporation, it must show that the
board of directors has duly authorized Atty. Lat. However,