x x x In the motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioners, it is insisted that Isuga, being the Managing Director and Secretary of Varorient is duly authorized to represent and act in behalf of the corporation, its foreign principal Lagoa and President Margarita Colarina. It is further alleged that even if there is no express authorization from Varorient and the other petitioners, still Isuga is impliedly authorized to file the petition and sign the verification and certification of non-forum shopping. The motion, nonetheless, attached a Secretarys Certificate datedMay 7, 2004 which petitioners claim to have been inadvertently omitted in the course of filing the petition.   We cannot agree with the petitioners. Neither do [w]e find consistency in their ratiocination that even without authorization, Isuga is authorized to act for the three (3) petitioners, and at the same time, presenting a Secretarys Certificate on a supposed Board of Directors meeting of Varorient on May 5, 2004. It would seem to [o]ur mind, that the Board Resolution and the Secretarys Certificate was just an afterthought. Otherwise, Ma. Luisa C. Isuga, the Corporate Secretary who was allegedly given authority by the Board to act for and in behalf of Varorientcould not have missed to append or even mention it in the petition at bar. Moreover, the Secretarys Certificate is issued by the Board of Directors of Varorient and not the two (2) other petitioners, Lagoa and its President, Margarita Colarina. Apropos, the foregoing circumstances only confirm that Isuga was not duly authorized when she signed the verification and non-forum shopping certification at the time the instant petition was filed.   Petitioner is hereby reminded that the power of a corporation to sue and be sued in any court is lodged with the board of directors that exercises its corporate powers. In the absence of any authority from the board of directors, no person, not even the officers of the corporation, can validly bind the corporation. [Premium Marble Resources, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 264 SCRA 11 (1996); Esteban, Jr. v. Vda. de Ocampo, 360 SCRA 230 (2002); Social Security System v. Commission on Audit, 384 SCRA 548 (2002)].   xxxx   ACCORDINGLY, petitioners Motion for Reconsideration dated June 29, 2004 is DENIED.   SO ORDERED.[17]   Hence, the present petition.   Varorient argues that there is substantial compliance with Section 3, Rule 46, considering the submission of the secretarys certificate showing the authority of Ma. Luisa C. Isuga to act for and in behalf of petitioner. Petitioner further