Postal return card inadequate
It cannot be stressed enough that it is the registry receipt issued by the mailing office and the affidavit of the person mailing that prove service made through registered mail.
Text size
It cannot be stressed enough that it is the registry receipt issued by the mailing office and the affidavit of the person mailing that prove service made through registered mail.
The petitioner in this case was removed from office based on a decision she alleged to have received in March 2017, many months after its promulgation in June 2016. The Civil Service Commission (CSC) dismissed her appeal on the grounds that it was filed out of time. The CSC ruled that she had 15 days from 14 June 2016, purportedly from the time the decision was served on her via registered mail, but she refused to receive it.
The petitioner denied any such receipt, much less refusal. She contended that she only became aware of her dismissal when she was served a notice of suspension from the CoA, where the decision was attached, on 8 March 2017. Accordingly, she argued that her appeal was within the reglementary period from that date.
She brought the matter to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court, however, did not give her a thumbs-up. Thus, her recourse to the Supreme Court. The issue was whether she was deemed to have received the decision on 14 June 2016 since the registry return card from the post office clearly indicated her refusal to receive it on that date in June.
The Highest Court, in this instance, sided with the petitioner, ruling:
“Concededly, the Rules on Evidence provides the disputable presumptions ‘[t]hat official duty has been regularly performed, and that a letter duly directed and mailed was received in the regular course of the mail. A disputable presumption is... a species of evidence that may be accepted and acted on when there is no other evidence to uphold the contention for which it stands, or one which may be overcome by other evidence.’
“Stated otherwise, it is an assumption that is satisfactory if uncontradicted but may be controverted and overcome by other evidence. 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, [petitioner’s] denial of her receipt of the 10 June 2016 decision shifted the burden unto [respondent] to prove that the decision was indeed duly served and received by [petitioner] absent specific provisions in the RACCS governing proof of service of judgments or orders, the Rules of Court apply in a suppletory character to fill in the lacuna.
“The applicable rule at the time of the purported service of the 10 June 2016 decision by registered mail on 14 June 2016 is Rule 13, Section 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which states that:
“Section 13. Proof of service. Proof of personal service shall consist of a written admission of the party served, or the official return of the server, or the affidavit of the party serving, containing a full statement of the date, place and manner of service.
“If the service is by ordinary mail, proof thereof shall consist of an affidavit of the person mailing of facts showing compliance with Section 7 of this Rule. If service is made by registered mail, proof shall be made by such affidavit and the registry receipt issued by the mailing office. The registry return card shall be filed immediately upon its receipt by the sender, or in lieu thereof the unclaimed letter together with the certified or sworn copy of the notice given by the postmaster to the addressee.
“Interestingly, the 2019 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure retains the same stringent directive of requiring both the affidavit of the postmaster and the registry receipt to prove service:
“Section 17. Proof of service. Proof of personal service shall consist of a written admission of the party served, or the official return of the server, or the affidavit of the party serving, containing a statement of the date, place, and manner of service.
“If the service is made by: (b) Registered mail — proof shall be made by the affidavit mentioned above and the registry receipt issued by the mailing office. The registry return card shall be filed immediately upon its receipt by the sender, or in lieu thereof, the unclaimed letter together with the certified or sworn copy of the notice given by the postmaster to the addressee.
“Evidently, both the 1997 and 2019 Rules of Civil Procedure mandate that the registry receipt be accompanied by an affidavit issued by the mailing office. The Revised Rules go further by specifying the contents of the affidavit of the party serving, which must indicate the date, place, and manner of service.
“In Republic of the Philippines v Resins Inc., this Court stressed that the registry return receipt cannot stand alone and must be authenticated through the affidavit of the postmaster, to wit:
“OSG’s denial of receipt of the 17 March 1993 judgment required Resins Inc. to show proof that the judgment was sent through registered mail and that it was received by the Republic. While the certification from the RTC Clerk of Court and photocopies of the return slips prove that the Republic was served the judgment, it does not follow that the Republic, via the OSG, actually received the judgment.
“Receipts for registered letters and return receipts do not prove themselves; they must be properly authenticated in order to serve as proof of receipt of the letters. It cannot be stressed enough that ‘it is the registry receipt issued by the mailing office and the affidavit of the person mailing, which proves service made through registered mail.’ Absent one or the other, or worse, both, there is no proof of service.
“When the service of the judgment is questioned, such as in the present case, there is a need to present both the registry receipt issued by the mailing office and the affidavit of the person mailing. 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 official duty cannot lie.
“In turn, the Court has no facts from which to assess the faithful performance of official duty.”
The facts and redacted portion of the decision are from SC G.R. No. 251903 (27 January 2025).
