Roulllo v. Lumayno
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: A court of first instance rendered a decision on April 23, 1956, ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff P1,960.00 plus interest and costs. Procedural History: On June 22, 1956, the plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration, which the defendant opposed, arguing that the decision had already become final as the motion was filed beyond the 30-day period. The trial court denied the motion on July 2, 1956, on the ground of tardiness. The Appeal: The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court, questioning whether his motion for reconsideration was filed within the reglementary period. The defendant contended that service of the decision was completed five days after the first notice on or about May 3, 1956, making the motion filed on June 22, 1956, beyond the 30-day period. The plaintiff presented proof that he actually received the registered mail containing the decision on May 24, 1956, and argued that his time to move for reconsideration should be counted from this date, as there was no proof that he received a "first notice" from the postmaster.
Issue(s)
Whether the service of the decision by registered mail was completed on May 3, 1956, or on May 24, 1956. Whether the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, filed on June 22, 1956, was filed within the reglementary period.
Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled that the service of the decision was completed on May 24, 1956, upon actual receipt by the plaintiff's counsel. Consequently, the motion for reconsideration filed on June 22, 1956, was within the 30-day reglementary period. The order of the lower court denying the motion for reconsideration was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that service by registered mail is complete upon actual receipt by the addressee, as provided in Rule 27, Section 8 of the Rules of Court. The second part of the rule, which states that service is complete five days after the first notice from the postmaster if the addressee fails to claim the mail, requires proof that such a first notice was actually given. In this case, the plaintiff presented evidence of actual receipt on May 24, 1956. The defendant failed to provide any proof that a first notice was issued by the postmaster, nor was there any allegation to that effect. Therefore, the service could not be deemed complete on May 3, 1956, based on the defendant's assumption that mailing constituted the first notice. The Court emphasized that the burden of proving the date of the postmaster's first notice rests on the party asserting it. On Issue 2: Since the service of the decision was completed on May 24, 1956, the 30-day period for filing a motion for reconsideration commenced on that date. The motion was filed on June 22, 1956. Counting the days from May 24 to June 22, it is evident that less than thirty days had elapsed. Therefore, the motion for reconsideration was filed within the reglementary period. The lower court erred in denying the motion solely on the ground of tardiness, as it still had jurisdiction to act upon the motion on its merits.
Main Doctrine
The completion of service by registered mail hinges on either actual receipt by the addressee or, in cases of non-claim, the expiration of five days from the postmaster's first notice. Crucially, the party asserting completion of service under the latter condition bears the burden of proving that such a first notice was indeed issued by the postmaster. Without this proof, service is deemed complete only upon actual receipt of the mail.