Case Digest (G.R. No. 237721)
Facts:
The case revolves around the legal dispute between Johnson & Johnson (Phils.), Inc. as the petitioner and the Court of Appeals (Ninth Division) along with Alejo M. Vinluan as the respondents. On November 29, 1990, the Court of Appeals issued a resolution addressed to the private respondent, Alejo M. Vinluan. However, this resolution was returned unclaimed on January 3, 1991. A subsequent attempt to serve the same resolution directly to Vinluan at a provided address was made, but this too was returned unclaimed on February 28, 1991. The Court of Appeals, on March 12, 1991, deemed the service of the November resolution complete as of the latter date in accordance with Section 8 of Rule 13 of the Rules of Court. On May 10, 1991, the Court denied Vinluan’s motion for reconsideration on the grounds that three notices regarding the registered mail were sent and returned unclaimed. Vinluan's counsel argued that there was no reason for theCase Digest (G.R. No. 237721)
Facts:
- Background of the Case
- The petitioner, Johnson & Johnson (Phils.) Inc., questioned a resolution issued by the Court of Appeals (Ninth Division) on March 12, 1991.
- The resolution pertained to the alleged completion of service of a copy of the resolution dated November 29, 1990, which was sent by registered mail.
- Service of the Resolution
- According to the respondent court’s record:
- A registered mail containing the resolution was sent to the petitioner’s counsel.
- The copy of the resolution, first sent on November 29, 1990, was returned "unclaimed" on January 3, 1991.
- The same copy was subsequently sent directly to the private respondent (Atty. Alejo M. Vinluan) at his given address, and was likewise returned unclaimed on February 28, 1991.
- The Court of Appeals, relying on Section 8, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, declared that service of the resolution was complete as of February 28, 1991 because of the unclaimed status after the 5-day period.
- Petitioner’s Arguments
- The petitioner contended that there was no valid reason for not claiming the registered mail.
- His counsel had an authorized employee, Arnold R. de Francisco, assigned to regularly claim all registered mails from the post office.
- The petitioner submitted evidence in the form of a listing of notices and registered letters received at his law office between November 23, 1990, and March 21, 1991.
- This listing, however, did not include any entry for the registered mail dated November 29, 1990, nor its accompanying notice.
- Respondents’ Position
- The private respondent maintained that the service was proper under the exception provided by Section 8, Rule 13.
- It was argued that since the petitioner’s counsel did not claim the mail within five (5) days from the date of the first registry notice, constructive service was deemed to have taken place.
- Legal Provision at Issue
- Section 8, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court establishes:
- Personal service is complete upon delivery.
- Service by ordinary mail is complete upon the expiration of five (5) days after mailing.
- Service by registered mail is complete upon actual receipt; however, if the mail is not claimed within five (5) days after the first notice, service takes effect upon the expiration of that period.
- The provision implies a presumption of complete service when proper postal procedures have been followed, provided there is certification that the first notice was duly sent.
- Certification and Evidence Issues
- The case records revealed that the postal certification only indicated that the notices were “issued.”
- There was no evidence or certification detailing how, when, and to whom these notices were delivered.
- The envelope of the registered mail merely bore “RETURN TO SENDER: UNCLAIMED” and “Return to: Court of Appeals” without sufficient details to evidence actual receipt or proper notification.
Issues:
- Whether the petitioner was properly served with a copy of the resolution dated November 29, 1990, under Section 8, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court.
- Whether the failure of the petitioner’s counsel to claim the registered mail within five (5) days constitutes sufficient proof of constructive service without detailed certification of delivery.
- Whether the mere notation on the returned mail (“RETURN TO SENDER: UNCLAIMED”) can adequately support the presumption of constructive service in the absence of comprehensive evidence, such as a certification indicating the “how, when and to whom” of the posting process.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)