This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-09-30 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Per Certification dated March 8, 2001, the Postmaster of the Mandaluyong Central Post Office attested that said letter-memorandum was mailed on October 14, 1998.[15] This sufficiently negates the NLRC's finding, specially in the light of the rule that a certification from the postmaster would be the best evidence to prove that the notice has been validly sent.[16] The NLRC apparently misread the date indicated on the registry return receipt when it found that the letter-memorandum was mailed only on October 14, 1999. Evidently, such erroneous conclusion of the NLRC cannot be upheld by the Court.[17] | |||||
|
2006-06-27 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC provides the rule for the service of notices and resolutions in NLRC cases, to wit: Sec. 4. Service of notices and resolutions. a) Notices or summons and copies of orders, resolutions or decisions shall be served on the parties to the case personally by the bailiff or the duly authorized public officer within three (3) days from receipt thereof by registered mail; Provided, that where a party is represented by counsel or authorized representative, service shall be made on such counsel or authorized representative; x x x The presumption is that the decision was delivered to a person in his office, who was duly authorized to receive papers for him, in the absence of proof to the contrary.[18] It is likewise a fundamental rule that unless the contrary is proven, official duty is presumed to have been performed regularly and judicial proceedings regularly conducted, which includes the presumption of regularity of service of summons and other notices.[19] The registry return of the registered mail as having been received is prima facie proof of the facts indicated therein. Thus, it was necessary for respondent to rebut that legal presumption with competent and proper evidence. | |||||