ChanRobles Virtual law Library

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR 5 2003.

G.R. No. 150479 ( Carmen M. Velez-Ting, petitioner, vs. The Hon. Court of Appeals (Special Former Tenth Division) and Benjamin G. Ting, respondents.)

This is a petition for certiorari ^[1] cralaw assailing the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated February 20, May 16, and August 9, 2001 in CA G.R. CV No. 59903.

The precursory facts are:

On October 19, 2000, the Court of Appeals rendered its Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 59903 reversing and setting aside the Decision dated January 9, 1998 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 23, Cebu City in Civil Case No. CEB-14826 for declaration of nullity of marriage; and declaring the marriage between petitioner Carmen M. Velez-Ting and private respondent Benjamin G. Ting valid.

On November 14, 2000, petitioner's counsel received a copy of the Court of Appeals Decision. On November 29, 2000, or within the 15-day reglementary period, he filed a motion for reconsideration. However, he erroneously stated therein that he received a copy of the Court of Appeals Decision on November 11, 2000 instead of November 14, 2000. Misled by such error, the Court of Appeals denied the motion for being late.

Realizing his mistake, petitioner's counsel immediately filed with the Appellate Court the corresponding manifestation together with the Certification issued by Mr. David F. Gonzales, City Postmaster of Mandaue City, stating that he (petitioner's counsel) received a copy of the assailed Decision on November 14, 2000. ^[2] cralaw However, the Court of Appeals still denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration.

Hence, this petition.

In a Resolution dated December 3, 2001, this Court dismissed the petition for having been filed late considering that petitioner's motion for reconsideration was not seasonably filed with the Court of Appeals.

On January 22, 2002, petitioner's counsel filed a motion for reconsideration and later, a supplemental motion for reconsideration, submitting a certified true copy of the Notice of Judgment issued by the Court of Appeals, through Division Clerk of Court Ma. Josefina G. San Juan-Torres, showing that he received the Court of Appeals Decision on November 14, 2001. ^[3] cralaw

On November 11, 2002, this Court issued a Resolution granting petitioner's motion for reconsideration, reinstating the petition and requiring private respondent to file a comment on the petition.

In his comment, ^[4] cralaw private respondent contends that the Postmaster's Certification is a plain narration which does not make reference to official records; and that the Court of Appeals Notice of Judgment was submitted late and, therefore, could have been tampered.

It bears emphasis that the Postmaster's Certification and Notice of Judgment were executed by public officers in the performance of their official duties. Thus, the entries are prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. ^[5] cralaw Private respondent failed to overcome such presumption.

Clearly, considering that petitioner's counsel received a copy of the Court of Appeals Decision on November 14, 2000 (not November 11), his motion for reconsideration filed on November 29, 2000 is well within the 15-day reglementary period.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The Court of Appeals is directed to resolve with dispatch petitioner's motion for reconsideration of its assailed Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 59903.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON
Clerk of Court