The Supreme Court (SC) has reiterated that the presumption that a letter was properly delivered, based on a post office’s registry return receipt, does not apply when strong evidence suggests otherwise.
In a Decision written by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, the SC’s Third Division held that the Civil Service Commission (CSC) wrongly dismissed Victoria Labastida’s (Labastida) appeal for being filed late.
Labastida, the Municipal Planning and Development Officer of Saint Bernard, Leyte, was dismissed by the Disciplining Authority of the Office of the Municipal Mayor for gross neglect of duty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service based on a complaint by Monina Quires (Quires).
A copy of the decision dated June 10, 2016, 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 the Commission on Audit (COA). She then filed an appeal with the CSC on March 16, 2017, which the CSC dismissed for being filed beyond the 15-day appeal period.
The Court of Appeals (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 SC disagreed with the CA, explaining that presumptions under the Rules on Evidence, specifically that official duties are regularly performed and that mail is properly delivered, can be overturned by strong, opposing evidence.
In this case, Labastida denied receiving the decision, shifting the burden of proof to the complainant, Quires, to show that the decision was actually received.
The SC also clarified that under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, then in effect, mere presentation of a registry return receipt is not enough to prove proper service. It must be accompanied by a postmaster’s affidavit confirming when, how, and to whom the delivery was made. This requirement remains under the 2019 Rules of Civil Procedure.
“The certification of the postmaster constitutes the best evidence to prove that the mail matter 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…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 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 Human Resources Management Office of Saint Bernard had any record of the alleged June 10, 2016 decision or any administrative case leading to it. Second, both he and Labastida 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 on June 14, 2016. It ordered the case returned to the CSC for further consideration of her appeal. (Courtesy of the SC Office of the Spokesperson)
Originally published by the Supreme Court Public Information Office.
