Republic v. Kenrick Dev’t Corp. entrusted to just anyone was void.

entrusted to just anyone was void. Any act taken pursuant to that authority was likewise void. There
Complaint & Pleadings – Aside from signature of lawyer, what else are required?
Facts:
1. Kenrick built a concrete fence around some parts of the land behind the Civil Aviation
Training Center of the Air Transportation Office (ATO) claiming ownership over those lands.
Its encroachment resulted to the dispossession of ATO of some 30,228 square meters of prime
land. Kenrick justified its action by presenting TCTs issued in its name and which allegedly
originated from a TCT registered in the name of Alfonso Concepcion.
2. When ATO verified the TCTs, the Registrar of Deeds reported that it has no record of them
and that their ascendant title, allegedly in the name of Concepcion, was non-existent in their
office. Thus, the OSG filed a complaint for revocation, annulment and cancellation of
certificates of title in behalf of the Republic against Concepcion and Kenrick.
3. Kenrick filed an answer which was allegedly signed by its counsel Atty. Onofre Garlitos Jr.
When Concepcion could not be located and be served with summons, the trial court ordered
the issuance of an alias summons by publication against him.
4. While the case was pending, the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee and Committee on Justice and
Human Rights investigated Kenrick’s acquisition of fake titles. During the hearing, Atty.
Garlitos was summoned and testified that he prepared Kenrick’s answer and transmitted an
unsigned draft to Kenrick’s president, Victor Ong. Apparently, the signature appearing
above Garlitos’ name was not his, he did not authorized anyone to sign it in his behalf,
and he did not know who finally signed it.
5. Republic filed an urgent motion to declare Kenrick and Concepcion in default for failure to file
a valid answer because the person who signed it was not the counsel for the respondents. Thus,
the answer was effectively an unsigned pleading. Under Sec. 3, Rule 7 of the ROC, an
unsigned pleading is a mere scrap of paper and produced no legal effect.
6. It granted the Republic’s motion. It ruled Kenrick’s answer “to be a sham and false and
intended to defeat the purpose of the rules.” It also ordered that the answer be stricken from the
records, declared Kenrick in default and allowed the Republic to present its evidence ex parte.
7. Having denied the motion for reconsideration. Kenrick, elevated the matter to the CA via a
petition for certiorari.
8. CA granted Kenrick’s petition for certiorari and lifted the trial court’s order of default against
Kenrick Then, it ordered the trial court to proceed to trial with dispatch. It ruled so because it
found Atty. Garlitos’ statements in the legislative hearing to be unreliable since they were not
subjected to cross-examination. It also scrutinized Atty. Garlitos’ acts after the filing of the
answer and concluded that he assented to the signing of the answer by somebody in his stead.
9. Republic moved for reconsideration but was denied, hence this petition.
was no way it could have been cured or ratified by Atty. Garlitos’ subsequent acts.
 No doubt, Atty. Garlitos could not have validly given blanket authority for just anyone to sign
the answer. The trial court correctly ruled that respondent’s answer was invalid and of no
legal effect as it was an unsigned pleading. Respondent was properly declared in default and
the Republic was rightly allowed to present evidence ex parte.
 Respondent insists on the liberal application of the rules. It maintains that even if it were true that its
answer was supposedly an unsigned pleading, the defect was a mere technicality that could be set
aside.
o The Court’s pronouncement in Garbo v. Court of Appeals is relevant:
 Procedural rules are [tools] designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases. Courts and
litigants alike are thus [enjoined] to abide strictly by the rules. And while the Court, in
some instances, allows a relaxation in the application of the rules, this, we stress, was
never intended to forge a bastion for erring litigants to violate the rules with impunity. The
liberality in the interpretation and application of the rules applies only in proper cases and
under justifiable causes and circumstances. While it is true that litigation is not a game of
technicalities, it is equally true that every case must be prosecuted in accordance with the
prescribed procedure to insure an orderly and speedy administration of justice.
 Like all rules, procedural rules should be followed except only when, for the most
persuasive of reasons, they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not
commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the
prescribed procedure. In this case, respondent failed to show any persuasive reason why
it should be exempted from strictly abiding by the rules.
Notes:


Issue:
o Main Issue: Whether or not Kenrick failed to file a valid answer on the ground that its pleading
was unsigned by its counsel Atty. Garlitos.

Court’s Ruling:

Yes. Pursuant to Sec. 3, Rule 7, a pleading must be “signed by the party or counsel representing
him.” The law is clear, and the counsel’s duty and authority to sign a pleading is personal to him
and may not be delegated to just any person. The signature of counsel constitutes an assurance by
him that he has read the pleading; that, to the best of his knowledge, information and belief, there is
a good ground to support it; and that it is not interposed for delay. Under the Rules of Court, it is
counsel alone, by affixing his signature, who can certify to these matters.

 Moreover, a signature by agents of a lawyer amounts to signing by unqualified persons, something

the law strongly proscribes. Therefore, the blanket authority respondent claims Atty. Garlitos