argues that the Court of Appeals should have upheld the primacy of substantial justice over technical rules of procedure.   There are three issues before us. The first, whether Varorient has substantially complied with the verification and certification requirement, is ultimately less than decisive to this case. The more worthy questions for consideration pertain to the effect of the respective failures to execute the prescribed verification and certification of Colarina, as a corporate officer solidarily bound with Varorient in the payment of employment claims, and Lagoa, as the foreign principal of Varorient.   There is sufficient jurisprudential justification to hold that Varorient has substantially complied with the verification and certification requirements. We have held in a catena of cases[18] with similar factual circumstance that there is substantial compliance with the Rules of Court when there is a belated submission or filing of the secretarys certificate through a motion for reconsideration of the Court of Appeals decision dismissing the petition for certiorari.    The Court is not unmindful of the necessity for a certification of non-forum shopping in filing petitions for certiorari as this is required under Section 1, Rule 65,in relation to Section 3, Rule 46 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. When the petitioner is a corporation, the certification should obviously be executed by a natural person to whom the power to execute such certification has been validly conferred by the corporate board of directors and/or duly authorized officers and agents. Generally, the petition is subject to dismissal if a certification was submitted unaccompanied by proof of the signatorys authority.[19]   Still, a distinction must be made between non-compliance with the requirements for certificate of non-forum shopping and verification and substantial compliance with the requirements as provided in the Rules of Court. The Court has allowed the belated filing of the certification on the justification that such act constitutes substantial compliance.  In Roadway Express, Inc. v. CA,[20] the Court