Petitioners thereupon filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals,[12] their counsel alleging that:   x x x Upon being confronted with the registry return card after the denial of Petitioners Motion for Reconsideration by Public Respondent, Ms. Cantalopez [of the office of petitioners counsel] realized that she had inadvertently and mistakenly entered the date 12 and not 13. She had actually received the decision of the Labor Arbiter on 13 July 2005 and had later that same day recorded that date accurately on the undersigneds copy of the Decision and in an incoming logbook, along with other incoming correspondences addressed to the undersigned law firm, before routing these to the appropriate attorneys, as is the Firms standard practice and internal operating procedure. This may be considered as akin to a mere typographical error and should not be given the extreme punishment of dismissal of Petitioners Appeal. x x x[13] (Underscoring supplied) Attached to the petition was the affidavit of Cantalopez of the office of petitioners counsel and a copy of the pertinent page of the logbook of the same office[14] reflecting the receipt on July 13, 2005 of the Labor Arbiters decision.   The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for, inter alia, failure to show that Marcelo R. Raenes (Raeses), Vice President of petitioner NYK-FIL Ship Management who signed the verification and certification of non-forum shopping, was authorized to sign for and in behalf of the said company. [15]  Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration,[16] attaching a copy of the Board Resolution of NYK-Fil Ship Management, Inc. authorizing Raeses to sign the required verification and certification at any stage of the subject case. Their motion was denied,[17] hence, the present Petition[18] raising the sole issue of:   WHETHER A TOTALLY NEW BOARD RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A CORPORATE OFFICER TO SIGN THE VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING IS SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED IN THE FILING OF A PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 65, BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS, EVEN IF A PREVIOUS BOARD RESOLUTION HAD ALREADY BEEN ISSUED IN FAVOR OF THE VERY SAME CORPORATE OFFICER AUTHORIZING HIM TO SIGN FOR AND IN BEHALF OF THE COMPANY AT ANY STAGE OF THE CASE.[19]     Annexed to the petition is a Secretarys Certificate attesting to the conduct of a special meeting of the Board of Directors of petitioner NYK-Fil Ship Management, Inc. in which said petitioner is now ratifying the actions of its Vice