VICTORIA M. LABASTIDA, PETITIONER, VS. MONINA C. QUIRES, ** RESPONDENT.
- G.R. Number: G.R. No. 251903
- Promulgated: 2025-01-27
- Ponente: GAERLAN, J.
Doctrine
## Facts of the Case Victoria M. Labastida (Labastida), the Municipal Planning and Development Officer of Saint Bernard, Southern Leyte, was the subject of an administrative complaint by Monina C. Quires (Quires) for gross neglect of duty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. On June 18, 2015, the Disciplining Authority dismissed Labastida from service, but the Civil Service Commission (CSC) reversed this on March 14, 2016, noting a lack of formal charge and due process violations. The complaint was re-filed, resulting in a June 10, 2016 Decision by the Disciplining Authority again dismissing Labastida. A copy of this decision was allegedly sent via registered mail to Labastida, with a registry return receipt annotated "refused to accept 06-14-16." Labastida, however, claimed she only received a copy of the June 10, 2016 Decision on March 8, 2017, when she received a Notice of Suspension from the Commission on Audit. She filed an appeal with the CSC on March 16, 2017. The CSC dismissed Labastida's appeal as untimely, reckoning the 15-day appeal period from June 14, 2016. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the CSC's decision, relying on the presumption of regularity of the registry return receipt. Labastida then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court. ## Issues 1. Did the Court of Appeals err in ruling that Labastida's appeal was filed out of time? ## Decision / Rationale **Issue 1:** The Supreme Court **reversed** the CA's decision, finding that the CA erred in ruling that Labastida's appeal was filed out of time. The Court held that Labastida's denial of receipt of the June 10, 2016 Decision shifted the burden to Quires to prove proper service. The presumption that official duty has been regularly performed and that a letter mailed was received in the regular course of mail are **disputable presumptions** that can be overcome by contrary evidence. Applying **Rule 13, Section 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure** (and its re-enactment in the 2019 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure) suppletorily, proof of service by registered mail requires both an affidavit from the person mailing and the registry receipt issued by the mailing office. The registry return receipt alone is insufficient. In this case, no such affidavit from a postmaster was presented. Furthermore, the registry return receipt contained only an unidentified signature and the annotation "refused to accept 06-14-16" without showing that the service was attempted on Labastida or her authorized representative. Crucially, the Municipal Mayor's successor submitted a compliance stating that there were no official records of the alleged June 10, 2016 Decision in the Municipal Mayor's Office or the Human Resources Management Office, and that they (and Labastida) were only notified of the decision on March 8, 2017 through a COA notice. These facts constituted "overwhelming evidence" that effectively overturned the presumptions of regularity and receipt. Therefore, Labastida's appeal, filed on March 16, 2017, was deemed timely as it was within 15 days of her actual receipt on March 8, 2017. The Court also emphasized liberal construction of procedural rules in the interest of substantial justice, as mandated by Section 3 of the **2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RACCS)**. The case was remanded to the CSC to resolve Labastida's appeal on the merits. ## Doctrines - **Disputable Presumptions**: The presumptions that official duty has been regularly performed and that a letter duly directed and mailed was received in the regular course of mail are disputable and can be overcome by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. - **Proof of Service by Registered Mail**: Under Rule 13, Section 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure (and Section 17(b) of the 2019 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure), proof of service by registered mail requires both the registry receipt issued by the mailing office and an…
Keywords
Rule 45 Rules of Court, Article IX, Section 1 1987 Constitution, Book V, Title I, Subtitle (A), Chapter 3, Section 12(2) Administrative Code of 1987, Section 7, A(4) 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RACCS), Section 66 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RACCS), Rule 13, Section 13 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, Section 17(b) 2019 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 1, Section 3 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RACCS), Rule 131, Section 3(m) 2019 Amendments to the 1989 Revised Rules on Evidence, Rule 131, Section 3(v) 2019 Amendments to the 1989 Revised Rules on Evidence, Presumption of Regularity in the Performance of Official Duty (disputable presumption), Liberal Construction of Procedural Rules, Administrative Discipline, Public Officers Accountability, Proof of Service by Registered Mail, Timeliness of Appeal, Petition for Review on Certiorari, Gross Neglect of Duty, Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, Due Process