FIRST
DIVISION
JOHNSON
& JOHNSON [PHILS.], INC.,
Petitioner,
G. R. No. 99434
September 24, 1991
-versus-
COURT
OF APPEALS [Ninth Division]
and ALEJO M. VINLUAN,
Respondents.
D
E C I S I O N
CRUZ, J.:
The petitioner
is questioning the Resolution
issued by the respondent court on March 12, 1991, reading as follows:
Considering that the copy of the
resolution
dated
November 29, 1990 served upon counsel for respondent was returned
unclaimed
on January 3, 1991, and afterwards the same copy sent to the private
respondent
itself at given address was likewise returned unclaimed on February 28,
1991, the Court resolved to declare service of the said resolution upon
the private respondent complete as of February 28, 1991, pursuant to
Sec.
8, Rule 13, Rules of Court.
and its
resolution dated May 10, 1991, declaring
that:
Acting upon private respondent's "Motion
for
Reconsideration" of Resolution of March 12, 1991, the Court RESOLVED:
Finding the ground relied upon by
private
respondent
in their motion for reconsideration dated March 21, 1991, to be without
merit, as the records show that indeed three [3] notices were sent as
reflected
in the mailing envelope on file, and that the same was returned
unclaimed,
said motion is hereby DENIED.
The
petitioner's counsel submits that there was no
reason why he could not have claimed the registered mail containing the
copy of the resolution dated November 29, 1990, had he been properly
sent
the notice to claim them. In fact, he says, to ensure prompt receipt of
all registered mail addressed to him, his law office has assign and
authorized
Arnold R. de Francisco, one of its employees, to regularly claim such
mail
from the post office.
He has also
attached a copy of the listing in
his office of the notices and registered letters received by it from
November
23, 1990, to March 21, 1991, covering the date of the resolution
contained
in the supposedly unclaimed mail dated November 29, 1990, the date when
it was returned on January 3, 1991, and the date he received the
questioned
order on March 21, 1991. The list does not include any notice regarding
the said registered letter of November 29, 1990, or the letter itself.cralaw:red
Refuting these
contentions, the private respondent
submits that the petitioner was correctly deemed to have been properly
served with the copy of the resolution dated November 29, 1990, after
its
counsel failed to claim his mail from the post office within 5 days
from
the date of the first registry notice. Under Section 8, of Rule 13 of
the
Rules of Court:
Sec. 8. Completeness of service.
-
Personal service is complete upon delivery Service by ordinary mail is
complete upon the expiration of five [5] days after mailing, unless the
court otherwise provides. Service by registered mail is complete upon
actual
receipt by the addressee; but if he fails to claim his mail from the
post
office within five [5] days from the date of first notice of the
postmaster,
service shall take effect at the expiration of such time.
The general
rule is that service by registered mail
is complete upon actual receipt thereof by the addressee. The exception
is where the addressee does not claim his mail within 5 days from the
date
of the first notice of the postmaster, in which case the service takes
effect upon the expiration of such period.
Inasmuch as the
exception refers to only constructive
and not actual service, such exception must be applied only upon
conclusive
proof that a first notice was duly sent by the postmaster to the
addressee.
The presumption that official duty has been regularly performed is not
applicable where there is evidence to the contrary, as in the case at
bar.cralaw:red
A certification
from the postmaster would be the
best evidence to prove that the notice has been validly sent.[1]
The mailman may also testify that the notice was actually delivered, as
we held in Aldecoa vs. Hon. Arellano and Siquenza.[2]
The postmaster should certify not only that the notice was issued or
sent
but also as to how, when and to whom the delivery thereof was made. In
Hernandez v. Navarro,[3]
where Justice Barredo made a masterly analysis of Section 8, Rule 13,
including
an exhaustive review of earlier pertinent cases, this Court held as
follows:
Consequently, it cannot be too much to
expect
that when the post office makes a certification regarding delivery of
registered
mail, such certification should include the data not only as to whether
or not the corresponding notices were issued or sent but also as to
how,
when and to whom the delivery thereof was made. Accordingly, the
certification
in the case at bar that the first and second notices addressed to Atty.
Narvasa had been "issued" can hardly suffice to satisfy the
requirements
of equity and justice, it was incumbent upon the post office to further
certify that said notices were reportedly received. When there are
several
related acts supposed to be performed by a public officer or employee
in
regard to a particular matter, the presumption of regularity in the
performance
of official functions would not arise and be considered as
comprehending
all the required acts, if the certification issued by the proper office
refers only to some of such acts, particularly in instances wherein
proof
of whether or not all of them have been performed is available under
the
law or office regulations to the officer mailing the certification. In
other words, the omission of some of the acts in the certification may
justify the inference that from the proof available to the officer
there
is no showing that they have also been performed.
There is
nothing in the records of the present case
showing how, when and to whom the delivery of the registry notices of
the
subject registered mail of petitioner was made and whether said notices
were received by the petitioner. The envelope containing the unclaimed
mail merely bore the notation "RETURN TO SENDER: UNCLAIMED" on the face
thereof and "Return to: Court of Appeals" at the back. The respondent
court
should not have relied on these notations to support the presumption of
constructive service.
We hold that the
Court of Appeals erred in ruling
that the petitioner had been duly served with a copy of the questioned
resolution despite the lack of sufficient evidence to support this
conclusion.
Accordingly, its resolutions dated March 12, 1991, and May 10, 1991,
are
set aside and the respondent court is ordered to properly serve on the
petitioner its resolution dated November 29, 1990.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Narvasa,
Griño-Aquino and Medialdea, JJ.,
concur.cralaw:red
___________________________
Endnotes
[1]
Barrameda vs. Castillo, 78 SCRA 1.
[2]
113 Phil. 75.
[3]
48 SCRA 44.
|