G.R. No. 152579 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/152579.htm All other claims are DISMISSED for want of legal and factual basis. [9] SO ORDERED. In ruling against Sameer, the Court of Appeals considered the following factual circumstances: (1) Sameer admitted that it hired and deployed Santos, et al. for and in behalf of Ensure for work in Taiwan; (2) Sameer received the placement fees for the processing of the documents of Santos, et al., without any showing that said fees inured to the benefit of ASBT in any way; (3) Santos, et al. were repatriated in 1996, prior to the supposed transfer of Sameers accreditation to ASBT on June 9, 1997; (4) the August 1, 1997 letter from the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) presented by Sameer pronouncing the transfer of accreditation of Yuan Fu Co. Ltd. to ASBT, upon Sameers representation that Yuan Fu Co. Ltd. and Ensure were one and the same entity, indicated that such accreditation of ASBT had been cancelled; and (5) Sameer failed to present substantial proof that Ensure changed its business name to Yuan Fu. Sameer, thus, moved to reconsider the December 10, 2001 Decision; but the Court of Appeals denied the same in its March 12, 2002 Resolution. Hence, this petition. The petition should be denied for utter want of merit. First. Sameer contends that both the June 6, 2001 Petition and the July 5, 2001 Motion for Reconsideration filed by ASBT before the Court of Appeals were signed by Mildred Santos, as corporate president, who is not a member of the Bar. As such, Sameer argues that both the Petition and the Motion for Reconsideration should be considered unsigned pleadings which produce no legal effect, pursuant to the last paragraph of Section 3, Rule 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. We disagree. Section 3, Rule 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides SEC. 3. Signature and address.Every pleading must be signed by the party or counsel representing him, stating in either case his address which should not be a post office box. The signature of counsel constitutes a certificate by him that he has read the pleading; that to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief there is good ground to support it; and that it is not interposed for delay. An unsigned pleading produces no legal effect. However, the court ay, in its discretion, allow such deficiency to be remedied if it shall appear that the same was due to mere inadvertence and not intended for delay. Counsel who deliberately files an unsigned pleading, 5 of 8 1/28/2016 1:44 PM