Romulo v. Peralta
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On December 3, 2003, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued Executive Order (E.O.) No. 253, entitled 'Providing For The Expansion Of Air Services To The Diosdado Macapagal International Airport (DMIA) And Subic Bay International Airport (SBIA),' implementing an 'open skies' policy that opened these airports to international air cargo providers and foreign airlines without prior congressional authorization. This policy was perceived by labor groups as undermining local aviation workers' interests by allowing foreign competition. On February 23, 2004, the PAL Employees Association (PALEA), National Labor Union (NLU), and National Federation of Labor Unions (NAFLU)—representing bulk of local aviation workers—filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and injunction before RTC Branch 17, Manila (Civil Case No. 04-109201), impleading Executive Secretary Alberto Romulo (later substituted by Eduardo Ermita), Office of the President, DOTC Secretary Leandro Mendoza, DOTC, Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB), and CAB Chairman. Respondents alleged E.O. 253's unconstitutionality: (a) usurps Congress's prerogative to declare open skies; (b) amends RA 7227; (c) amends/repeals RA 776; (d) permits foreign airlines as common carriers sans constitutional compliance. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), for petitioners, filed a motion to dismiss for lack of cause of action on April 5, 2004, claiming service by registered mail on April 6, 2004 to counsel Atty. Froilan M. Bacungan. Procedural History: The motion to dismiss was set for hearing on April 16, 2004. On that date, RTC Judge Eduardo B. Peralta issued an Order denying the motion, citing absence of proof of transmittal by registered mail to petitioners' counsel per Rule 15, Sec. 4. OSG's May 19, 2004 motion for reconsideration attached only a photocopy of registry return receipt No. 4096, denied June 21, 2004, as it lacked indication the receipt pertained to the motion (citing Sapida v. Villanueva). OSG's July 28, 2004 second motion included certified photocopy of receipt, OSG records, and affidavit of Records Officer Josephine S. Masangkay-Bayongan stating she 'caused' service on April 6, 2004; denied September 3, 2004, due to judicial admission in motion that counsel received copy only April 20, 2004—post-hearing. Petitioners filed certiorari petition under Rule 65 before Supreme Court, alleging grave abuse; Court noted hierarchy violation but resolved for speedy justice. The Petition: Petitioners argued RTC gravely abused discretion in denying motion to dismiss despite substantial compliance with service rules, insisting April 6 mailing sufficed under Rule 13, and actual receipt on April 20 irrelevant as service deemed complete earlier. They claimed registry receipt No. 4096 and Bayongan's affidavit proved service, challenging RTC's strict formalism as arbitrary, amounting to refusal to perform duty, warranting certiorari. Respondents countered service defective: no affidavit from actual mailer, receipt unlinked to motion, violating precedents; denial interlocutory, no grave abuse as RTC followed Rules precisely.
Issue(s)
Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the OSG's motion to dismiss for lack of proof of service by registered mail under Rules 13 and 15. Whether the denial of motions for reconsideration constituted arbitrary or despotic action justifying certiorari.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is DISMISSED, and the assailed RTC Orders dated April 16, 2004, June 21, 2004, and September 3, 2004 are AFFIRMED. No grave abuse of discretion attended the RTC's denial of the motion to dismiss and reconsiderations thereof.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1 (Grave Abuse in Denying Motion to Dismiss): Generally, denial of motion to dismiss is interlocutory, remedied by answer and appeal, not certiorari, unless grave abuse—arbitrary, despotic exercise invading duty (Hongkong & Shanghai Banking v. NLRC; Santos v. COMELEC). Here, no dispute Atty. Bacungan received motion April 20, 2004, post-April 16 hearing, but petitioners claim April 6 registered mailing completed service per Rule 13, Sec. 10 (complete on receipt or 5 days post-notice). Proof under Sec. 13 mandates: (1) affidavit of 'person mailing' with full date/place/manner; (2) registry receipt. First motion's mere photocopy of receipt No. 4096 insufficient, as it showed no link to motion (Cayetano v. Cayetano: no knowledge absent indication on notice/envelope/return card). Sapida v. Villanueva reiterated: cannot attribute knowledge without annotation proving content. Bayongan's affidavit defective—she 'caused' service, not mailed it herself, violating 'person mailing' requirement. RTC correctly denied per Rule 15, Sec. 4 caveat: no timely service proof = denial at hearing. Thus, no grave abuse; acted pursuant to Rules. On Issue 2 (Reconsiderations Denial): Second motion's certified receipt, records, affidavit still failed: receipt unindicative of motion content; affidavit not from mailer. Third motion's 'judicial admission' (para. 2: receipt April 20 post-hearing) confirmed non-compliance. Grave abuse requires patent grossness as virtual duty refusal; here, RTC's rulings clinical, rule-based, not capricious. Court waived hierarchy for justice but found no excess jurisdiction.
Main Doctrine
Service of pleadings by registered mail is complete upon actual receipt by the addressee or after five days from first notice by postmaster, whichever is earlier, but proof thereof demands strict compliance with Rule 13, Sec. 13: an affidavit from the actual person who mailed the document, fully stating date, place, and manner of service, coupled with the registry receipt issued by the mailing office. The registry return card or receipt must permit identification that the mailed item was specifically the pleading in question; mere photocopies or unannotated receipts fail this test, as held in Cayetano v. Cayetano and Sapida v. Villanueva. An affidavit from a records officer who merely 'caused' service does not suffice, as it must be from 'the person mailing.' Failure to prove complete service under Rule 15, Sec. 4 results in automatic denial of the motion at hearing, without considering late receipt. This ensures due process, preventing assumptions of knowledge absent clear evidentiary links, and upholds the trial court's discretion absent grave abuse amounting to capricious refusal of duty.