Johnson & Johnson (phils.) Inc. v. The Court Of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the validity of service of a resolution by the Court of Appeals upon petitioner Johnson & Johnson (Phils.) Inc. The petitioner argues that it was not properly notified of a resolution dated November 29, 1990, and therefore could not have claimed the mail containing it. The petitioner's counsel asserts that their office has a system for claiming registered mail and that no notice for the specific mail in question was received. 2. Procedural History: The Court of Appeals issued a resolution on March 12, 1991, declaring service of its November 29, 1990 resolution complete as of February 28, 1991, after the mail was returned unclaimed twice. The petitioner moved for reconsideration, which was denied by the Court of Appeals in a resolution dated May 10, 1991, finding the motion without merit. This petition seeks to overturn these two resolutions. 3. The Petition: The petitioner is questioning the resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated March 12, 1991, and May 10, 1991, arguing that service was not properly effected. The petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals erred in presuming constructive service under Section 8, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court without conclusive proof that a postmaster's notice was duly sent and received by the addressee. The petitioner seeks to have these resolutions set aside and for the Court of Appeals to properly serve its November 29, 1990 resolution.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the petitioner had been duly served with a copy of the resolution dated November 29, 1990. Whether the resolutions dated March 12, 1991, and May 10, 1991, of the Court of Appeals are valid. (This issue is contingent upon proper service of the resolution dated November 29, 1990)
Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner. It held that the Court of Appeals erred in declaring service complete without sufficient evidence. The resolutions dated March 12, 1991, and May 10, 1991, were set aside, and the respondent court was ordered to properly serve its resolution dated November 29, 1990, on the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of service of process by registered mail: The Court reiterated the rule on service by registered mail under Section 8, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court. It stated that service is complete upon actual receipt by the addressee, but if the addressee fails to claim the mail within five days from the date of the first notice of the postmaster, service shall take effect at the expiration of such time. However, the Court emphasized that this exception, which pertains to constructive service, must be applied only upon conclusive proof that a first notice was duly sent by the postmaster to the addressee. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty is not applicable where there is evidence to the contrary, as in the case at bar. The Court noted that there was nothing in the records showing how, when, and to whom the delivery of the registry notices was made, or whether they were received by the petitioner. The notations on the envelope ("RETURN TO SENDER: UNCLAIMED" and "Return to: Court of Appeals") were deemed insufficient to support the presumption of constructive service. The Court cited Hernandez v. Navarro to highlight that a certification from the post office regarding delivery of registered mail should include data not only on whether notices were issued but also on how, when, and to whom delivery was made. The absence of such details in the certification or the records can justify an inference that the required acts were not performed. Therefore, the Court concluded that the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the petitioner had been duly served with a copy of the questioned resolution due to the lack of sufficient evidence. On the validity of the resolutions dated March 12, 1991, and May 10, 1991: Since the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the petitioner had been duly served with a copy of the resolution dated November 29, 1990, the subsequent resolutions dated March 12, 1991, and May 10, 1991, are also invalid because they are based on the improperly served resolution.
Main Doctrine
Service by registered mail is complete upon actual receipt by the addressee, or if the addressee fails to claim the mail within five days from the date of the first notice of the postmaster, service takes effect upon the expiration of such period. However, this exception requires conclusive proof that a first notice was duly sent by the postmaster, and the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty does not apply where there is evidence to the contrary, such as the absence of any notice in the addressee's records.