G.R. No. 152579 7 of 8 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/152579.htm Appeals, dismissing the petition on the technical ground of lack of proof of the authority of ASBT President Mildred R. Santos to bind the corporation in its appeal, is simply what it is, a motion for reconsideration. Sameer cannot insist that it be treated as a new petition just to make it fit the definition of forum shopping in an attempt to evade liability to pay the amounts awarded to Santos, et al. Nor was Sameer correct when it asseverated that the Seventh Division, that initially dismissed then reinstated ASBTs petition, and the Former Fourth Division, that rendered the questioned Decision and Resolution in favor of ASBT, can be considered as different fora within the ambit of the prohibition. They are mere divisions of one and the same Court of Appeals. And as explained by the appellate court, what actually happened was that after the Seventh Division issued its June 19, 2001 Resolution dismissing the case for failure of ASBT to show that Mildred R. Santos was authorized to sign and bind the corporation in the proceedings, ASBT complied and submitted the requisite proof of authority. The Seventh Division then issued a Resolution on August 14, 2001 reinstating the petition. After an internal reorganization, it was the Fourth Division which promulgated a decision on December 10, 2001. ASBT never filed a second petition. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The assailed December 10, 2001 Decision and the March 12, 2002 Resolution of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED. ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice WE CONCUR: CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice Chairperson MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice 1/28/2016 1:44 PM