Domingo v. De Leon
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Juanita R. Domingo filed a special civil action for certiorari and mandamus seeking to set aside an entry of judgment made by the Clerk of Court of the Court of Appeals and to annul resolutions of the First Division of said court. The case originated from CA-G.R. No. 19223-R, where the Court of Appeals promulgated a decision on June 30, 1958, in favor of Juanita R. Domingo (plaintiff-appellant) against Isidro Soriente (defendant-appellee). A motion for reconsideration filed by the defendant-appellee was denied, and a copy of the resolution was allegedly received by his counsel on August 15, 1960. Procedural History: Based on the August 15, 1960 receipt, the Clerk of Court of the Court of Appeals made an entry of judgment on August 16, 1960, declaring the decision final and executory. Petitioner's counsel filed a motion to set aside this entry, contending that the defendant's counsel actually received the resolution on August 12, 1960, not August 15, 1960, citing a messenger's report. The respondent justices denied this motion. Petitioner's counsel then filed a motion for reconsideration, alleging the delivery receipt was doubtful and post-dated. This was also denied. The Petition: The present petition for certiorari and mandamus was filed with the Supreme Court, assailing the entry of judgment and the resolutions of the Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in relying on the date appearing on the delivery receipt rather than the messenger's report for proof of service. Whether the entry of judgment dated August 16, 1960, was valid.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The entry of judgment and the resolutions of the Court of Appeals are upheld.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of proof of service and reliance on the delivery receipt: The Court held that Section 10, Rule 27 of the Rules of Court provides for three methods of proving service: (1) written admission of the party served, (2) affidavit of the serving party, and (3) affidavit of the server with registry receipt for mail service. In this case, personal service was made, evidenced by a delivery receipt signed by the counsel for respondent Soriente. The Court found this delivery receipt to be the best evidence of service, as it falls under the category of a written admission of the party served. The Court emphasized that absent any irregularity or suspicious circumstance on the face of the receipt, it is entitled to full faith and credit. The Court found no reason to give more weight to the messenger's report, especially since the messenger did not report the alleged postdating until almost two months later, and the respondent justices found the receipt to be clean on its face. Therefore, the respondent justices correctly interpreted the rules on proof of service. On the validity of the entry of judgment: Since the delivery receipt, considered the best evidence of service, indicated that the counsel for respondent Soriente received the resolution on August 15, 1960, the decision became final and executory on August 16, 1960. Consequently, the entry of judgment made by the Clerk of Court on August 16, 1960, was proper and in accordance with the rules. The Court found that the respondent justices acted correctly in denying the motion to set aside the entry of judgment, as they had no alternative given the evidence presented and the applicable rules. The claim that the delivery receipt was post-dated was not substantiated to the satisfaction of the respondent justices, who found the receipt to be clean and regular on its face.
Main Doctrine
A delivery receipt, evidencing personal service, constitutes the best evidence of service under the Rules of Court, and absent any irregularity or suspicious circumstance, it is entitled to full faith and credit in determining the finality of a judgment.