Photo from Pexels | Ylanite Koppens
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
Proof of service of the assailed judgment must be clearly established to properly determine the period for filing an appeal. To this end, the registry return receipt alone will not suffice to prove service through registered mail.
The case stemmed from an administrative complaint filed by Quires for gross neglect of duty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service against Labastida, who was then Municipal Planning and Development Officer (MPDO) of Saint Bernard, Southern Leyte.
Quires alleged that in 2013, then Municipal Mayor Cuaton directed Labastida to revise the LGU’s Comprehensive Land Use Program (CLUP) to make it compliant with the guidelines set by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) on or before September 2013. Labastida undertook to submit the revision by September 12, 2012, yet, later on, requested for an extension. Despite her plea for extension, she failed to submit the revised CLUP. In 2014, Labastida submitted the CLUP, which was found to be lacking in vital information, overall merit, and was alleged to contain “copy-paste” materials.
Quires further averred in her Complaint that Labastida is guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service for refusing to cooperate in the inquiry in aid of legislation. Further, Labastida purportedly defied the directive of Mayor Cuaton to attend the training seminar workshop. Moreover, Labastida allegedly posted comments on social media that embarrassed some LGU Officials and employees and acted dishonestly when she gave herself a high rating in her Performance Evaluation Report.
Lambastida was dismissed by the Disciplining Authority of the Office of the Municipal Mayor. A copy of the decision was reportedly sent to Labastida by registered mail, as shown by a registry return receipt marked “refused to accept 06-14-16.”
However, Labastida denied ever receiving the decision. She claimed that she only learned about it on March 8, 2017, when she received a notice of suspension from COA. She then filed an appeal with the CSC, which was dismissed for being filed beyond the reglementary period.
The CA upheld the CSC’s decision, reasoning that the registry return receipt is presumed to have been properly issued by the post office in the regular performance of its official duties.
The Supreme Court’s Decision
Jurisprudence underscores that the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed does not apply in the face of clear evidence to the contrary. In the same vein, the presumption that a letter was received in the regular course of mail is likewise subject to controversion and direct denial. In such case, the burden shifts to the party favored by the presumption to establish that the subject mailed letter was in fact received by the addressee. Thus, Labastida’s denial of her receipt of the Decision shifted the burden unto Quires to prove that the said Decision was indeed duly served and received by Labastida.
The certification of the postmaster constitutes the best evidence to prove that the mail matter was velidly sent. The postmaster should certify not only that the mail was validly sent. The postmaster should certify not only that the mail was issued or sent but likewise specify how, when, and to whom the delivery thereof was made. Without the certification of the postmaster containing details on how and to whom the registered mail was sent, the presumption regarding the performance of the official duty cannot lie.
Further, supporting Labastida’s claim are several key pieces of evidence. First, the succeeding Mayor confirmed that neither his office nor the HR Management Office of Saint Bernard had any record of the alleged decision or any administrative case leading to it. Second, both he and Labastoda were only notified of the decision on March 8, 2017. Third, the registry return receipt bears the signature of an unidentified postal official. It lacks any indication that the attempted service was made directly to Labastida or her authorized representative.
Given these, the SC concluded that Labastida had successfully overturned the presumption that the decision was properly served.
Victoria M. Labastida vs. Monina C. Quires
G.R. No. 251903. January 27, 2025
SC: Presumption of Proper Mail Delivery Does Not Apply When Opposed by Strong Evidence
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/ 0917-5772207/ 09778050020.
All rights reserved.
