In John Hay Management Corp. v. Pascua,1G.R. No. 241497, January 10, 2019. the respondent therein successfully rebutted the presumption of regularity relating to service of decisions. She was able to prove that the person who received the Decision of the Office of the Labor Arbiter was not her counsel’s authorized agent. The 10-day period for filing her appeal thus commenced only on actual delivery of the Decision to her counsel. The Court ruled:
Indeed, the presumption is that the decision was delivered to an authorized agent in the office of respondent’s counsel, Atty. Edward Chumawar, in the absence of proof to the contrary. It is likewise a fundamental rule that unless the contrary is proven, official duty is presumed to have been performed regularly and judicial proceedings regularly conducted, which includes the presumption of regularity of service of summons and other notices. The registry return of the registered mail as having been received is prima facie proof of the facts indicated therein. Thus, it was necessary for respondent to rebut that legal presumption with competent and proper evidence. This, she was able to do through a certification from the Provincial Human Resources Management Office of the Bontoc, Mountain Province that Gina Faycho was its employee from January 2, 2014 to December 31, 2014. Clearly, therefore, Gina Faycho was neither a clerk of Atty. Chumawar, nor a person in charge of his office. Hence, her receipt of the Decision on October 10, 2014 cannot be considered as notice to Atty. Chumawar. Since a copy of the Decision was actually delivered to Atty. Chuamawar only on October 13, 2014, it was only on this date that the ten-day period for the filing of respondent’s appeal commenced to run.2Emphasis supplied.
Further Reading:
- John Hay Management Corp. v. Pascua, G.R. No. 241497, January 10, 2019.
Check Out My Latest YouTube Video
[embedyt] https://www.youtube.com/embed?listType=playlist&list=UUA0qsY28UIiqNcY45Ez2rjg&layout=gallery[/embedyt]
Lawyer | Law Professor | Author
