Republic v. Resins
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Resins, Incorporated filed an application for judicial confirmation of title over eight parcels of land located in Jasaan, Misamis Oriental. The Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), initially entered an appearance and later filed an opposition to the application. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) eventually rendered a judgment in favor of Resins, Incorporated, decreeing that it was the owner in fee simple of the lots. Procedural History: Following the RTC's initial judgment on March 17, 1993, Resins, Incorporated sought corrections for typographical errors in the judgment, leading to an Amended Judgment on January 17, 1994, and a further Amended Judgment on March 16, 1994. The OSG received a copy of this latter amended judgment on May 2, 1994, and filed a notice of appeal on May 12, 1994. Subsequently, Resins, Incorporated filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, which the RTC granted on July 7, 1999, citing the appeal's untimeliness. The Republic moved for reconsideration, arguing it was never furnished a copy of the original judgment, but the RTC denied this on May 28, 2003. The Republic then filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with the Court of Appeals (CA), seeking to nullify the RTC's orders and judgments. The Petition: The Republic, through the OSG, filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court, assailing the CA's decision that denied its petition for certiorari. The Republic argued that the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing its notice of appeal and denying its motion for reconsideration because the OSG was not actually notified of or did not receive a copy of the original March 17, 1993 judgment. The Republic contended that this prevented it from timely filing an appeal or seeking reconsideration. The core of the petition hinges on the proper proof of service of the judgment, with the Republic asserting that Resins, Incorporated failed to adequately prove actual receipt by the OSG, thereby depriving the Republic of its right to due process and appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in not holding that the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the Republic's notice of appeal and denying its motion for reconsideration, considering the OSG was allegedly not actually notified of or did not receive a copy of the original Judgment dated March 17, 1993. Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in not holding that the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the Orders dated July 7, 1999, and May 28, 2003, which allegedly deprived the Republic of its opportunity to interpose an appeal.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals, and directed the Regional Trial Court to hear the appeal of the Republic of the Philippines.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the Republic's appeal due to alleged non-receipt of the original judgment: The Court ruled that the petition is meritorious and that Resins, Inc. failed to prove that the Republic, via the OSG, actually received the March 17, 1993 Judgment. The burden of proving notice rests upon the party asserting its existence. While service by registered mail is a valid mode of service, proof thereof requires more than just a certification from the Clerk of Court and photocopies of return slips. The rules require the registry receipt issued by the mailing office and an affidavit of the person who did the mailing. In this case, Resins, Inc. failed to present these crucial pieces of evidence. The certification from the RTC Clerk of Court did not state that the Clerk of Court personally did the mailing, and it was not under oath. The photocopies of the return slips, without the original registry receipt or a certified/sworn copy of the postmaster's notice to the addressee, are insufficient. The OSG presented proof of non-receipt, including entries in its Docket Division Log Book which did not show receipt of the March 17, 1993 Judgment before the Amended Judgment was received. Therefore, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty by the RTC Clerk of Court must yield to the OSG's denial of receipt, which was not adequately rebutted by Resins, Inc.'s evidence. Consequently, the Republic was deprived of its right to appeal, and the dismissal of the appeal by the RTC, affirmed by the CA, constituted grave abuse of discretion. There was no ratio provided for the second issue.
Main Doctrine
Proof of service by registered mail requires both the registry receipt issued by the mailing office and an affidavit of the person who did the mailing. Mere certification from the Clerk of Court and photocopies of return slips are insufficient to prove actual receipt, especially when receipt is denied by the addressee.