This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2004-06-21 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Neither can respondent properly rely on Cañete v. National Labor Relations Commission[26] nor Adamson Ozanam Educational Institution, Inc. v. Adamson University Faculty and Employees Association.[27] In those cases, services were made to persons with apparent lack of authority whatsoever to receive correspondence for and in behalf of counsel. Thus, the 15-day reglementary period was counted from the actual receipt of the proper party. In Cañete, service was made to a sales representative of an adjacent office, who happened to be seated outside the law office of the attorney on record while the said office was still closed. In Adamson, service was made to a security guard. In contrast, here the counsel to whom the court decision was to be served held office within the GSIS building, where there was a designated clerk to receive correspondence officially. | |||||
|
2002-10-28 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| shown by the several return receipts in our possession, petitioner has been receiving our resolutions through persons other than himself and there has been no instance where he failed to receive our processes except for one occasion where the mail matter itself was returned unserved to this Court.[8] Verily, as between petitioner's unsubstantiated denial and the positive assertion of a postal official whose duty is to send mail matters, the choice is not difficult for us since his uncorroborated denial cannot prevail over the contrary statement of a postal official who further has the presumption in his favor that official duty was regularly performed.[9] While it is true that service of a copy of the decision upon a person who is neither a clerk nor one in charge of the attorney's office is invalid,[10] petitioner has not shown by any means that the recipient of the CA Decision was disqualified | |||||