Regular and valid

It is a fundamental rule that unless the contrary is proven, official duty is presumed to have been performed regularly and judicial proceedings regularly conducted. This is illustrated in this case of Gerry.

Gerry was a former set-man of a TV producer (SCI). On August 8, 2000, he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of benefits against SCI. Summons were issued and sent by registered mail to “Mr. Jess Jimenez with address at SCI/GMA complex, EDSA corner Timog Avenue, Diliman Quezon City”.

The envelope containing the summons is marked “return to sender” and “unclaimed” and has notations “second notice date 8/14” and “last notice date 9/6”. Under the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Rules (Sections 5 and 6 Rule III), service by registered mail is complete after five (5) days from the date of the first notice of the postmaster in the event the addressee fails to claim the registered mail from the post office.

Thereafter, the Labor Arbiter (LA) sent notices of mandatory conference set for August 25, 2000 and five dates for the hearing of Gerry’s complaint all by registered mail. Certifications from the QC Central Post Office indicate that at least two (2) notices were delivered and received at the address indicated on October 17 and 25, 2000, received by a certain Mr. M. Sulit.

SCI failed to appear during the scheduled hearings. As a result, it’s right to file the position paper was deemed waived by the LA and only Gerry filed his position paper.

On April 26, 2001, the LA rendered a decision ordering the reinstatement of Gerry to his former position without loss of seniority rights and with full back-wages from the time of dismissal up to actual reinstatement, or, if not feasible, the payment of one month salary for every year of service as separation pay. Based on the certification of the QC post office, SCI received a copy of the LA decision on June 5, 2001.

Subsequently on July 6, 2001 a writ of execution was served on SCI. But on August 2, 2001, SCI filed a notice of appeal with the NLRC. SCI claimed that it was denied due process when the LA decided the case even in the absence of sufficient proof that the summons and notices were delivered to them. They also argued that there was no valid service of summons since Jess Jimenez, the person named in the summons is a complete stranger to SCI. Was SCI correct?

No. The postal office certifications are prima facie proof that the said processes had been delivered to and received by SCI. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty stands. This presumption of the regularity of the quasi-judicial proceedings before the NLRC includes the presumption of regularity of service of summons and other notices. The return of the registered mail as “unclaimed” is prima facie proof of the facts indicated therein. It is therefore incumbent upon SCI to rebut that legal presumption with competent and proper evidence, a task which they failed to do.

Moreover, despite SCI’s assertions that the summons and notices had not been served on any of the authorized officers or agents of the corporation, they do not deny however that the same had been properly sent to their business address. The fact that the person named in the summons is a complete stranger to SCI did not mean that no valid service of summons was made since the name of SCI itself is mentioned on the face of the letter envelope. In fact even the writ of execution was served at the very same address written on the summons, notices and decision. Technical rules of procedure are not strictly applied in quasi-judicial proceedings; only substantial compliance is required. The constitutional requirement of due process exacts that the service be such as may reasonably be expected to give the notice desired.

It is a legal presumption born of wisdom and experience that official duty has been regularly performed; that proceedings of a judicial tribunal are regular and valid, and that judicial duties and acts have been and will be duly and properly performed (Scenarios Inc. et. al. vs. Vinluan, G.R. 173283, September 17, 2008). 

* * *

E-mail: [email protected]