Republic of the Philippines vs. Teresita I. Salinas

The filing date of a pleading submitted to the court through registered mail is proved by the post office-stamped date appearing on the envelope of the pleading or that stated in the registry receipt; the requirement of a registry receipt and an affidavit of the mailing person under Section 16 (formerly Section 12), Rule 13 applies only when the pleading is not found in the records of the case. A postmaster's certification that contradicts the stamped date does not overcome the presumption of regularity attaching to the envelope unless the discrepancy is explained.

Respondent Teresita I. Salinas was the petitioner in a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage filed on the ground of psychological incapacity, raffled to the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 48, while the Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, was the party that sought to appeal the trial court's grant of that petition. The controversy is governed by Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC, which prescribes the manner of filing pleadings and the proof required to establish the date of filing by registered mail.

Teresita I. Salinas filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity, which was raffled to the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 48. The petition was granted in a Decision dated May 13, 2015. The Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed a motion for reconsideration of that Decision.

The motion for reconsideration was denied in an Order dated July 27, 2015, which the Republic received on August 4, 2015, giving it until August 19, 2015 within which to file an appeal. The RTC subsequently received a Notice of Appeal via registered mail, contained in an envelope rubber stamped with the date "October 5, 2015," which the RTC found to have been imprinted by the postmaster.

In an Order dated October 15, 2015, the RTC denied the Republic's Notice of Appeal for being filed late. The Republic moved for reconsideration, positing that its Notice of Appeal was seasonably filed. To support its claim, the Republic attached a photocopy of the OSG Inner Registered Sack Bill dated August 18, 2015, which included entry numbers "18" and "19," or registry numbers "3495" and "3496," pertaining to a Notice of Appeal purportedly sent to "RTC Br 48" and to Salinas' counsel, Atty. Pacianito B. Cabaron. The OSG bill bore a rubber stamp stating "ERMITA POST OFFICE Registered Mail AUG 18 2015." The Republic also filed a supplement to the motion for reconsideration, attaching a Certification dated January 6, 2016 issued by Evelyn B. Jacala, Postmaster of the Ermita Post Office, stating that the registered letters with numbers 3495 and 3496 from the OSG were posted on August 18, 2015. The motion for reconsideration was nonetheless denied by the RTC in an Order dated December 22, 2015.

The denial of the Notice of Appeal and of the Republic's subsequent motion for reconsideration prompted the Republic to challenge the RTC Orders through a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals. The RTC found that the envelope containing the Notice of Appeal bore the postmaster's rubber stamp dated October 5, 2015, and treated that date as the date of filing; the Republic, for its part, insisted that the OSG Inner Registered Sack Bill and the postmaster's certification established that the pleading was mailed on August 18, 2015.

• Reliability of the Envelope Date: The Republic cast doubt on the reliability of the date appearing on the envelope of the Notice of Appeal, pointing out that the RTC merely surmised that such date was placed by the postmaster.
• Timely Filing: The Republic maintained that its Notice of Appeal was timely filed as evidenced by the OSG Inner Registered Sack Bill and the Certification issued by the postmaster.
• Postmaster's Certification: In its Reply, the Republic contended that the Certification issued by the postmaster, who enjoys the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties, should prevail and take the place of the required affidavit.

• Failure of Proof: Salinas argued that the Republic failed to prove that the Notice of Appeal was filed on or before August 19, 2015, as it admittedly did not present an affidavit of the person who mailed the pleading, as required under Section 12, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Whether the CA erred in finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC when it denied the Republic's Notice of Appeal for being filed late.
• Governing Rule on Proof of Filing: Whether Section 12 (now Section 16), Rule 13 or Section 3, Rule 13 governs the proof of the date of filing of a pleading sent by registered mail that is extant on the record.
• Probative Value of the OSG Inner Registered Sack Bill: Whether the photocopy of the OSG Inner Registered Sack Bill may be equated with a registry receipt and given probative value.
• Sufficiency of the Postmaster's Certification: Whether the postmaster's certification suffices to prove timely filing notwithstanding a different date stamped on the envelope.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: No. The RTC committed no grave abuse of discretion in denying the Notice of Appeal, the date stamped on the envelope being the controlling date of filing under Section 3, Rule 13 of the Rules.
• Governing Rule on Proof of Filing: Section 3, Rule 13 governs. Section 16 (formerly Section 12), Rule 13 applies only where the pleading is not found in the records; here the Notice of Appeal was extant on record.
• Probative Value of the OSG Inner Registered Sack Bill: No. The Sack Bill cannot be equated with a registry receipt, not having been issued or signed by the postmaster or authorized receiving personnel, and containing several blank entries.
• Sufficiency of the Postmaster's Certification: No. The certification does not suffice absent any explanation for the discrepancy between the date on the envelope and the date stated therein.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: The RTC's denial of the Notice of Appeal rested on the post office-stamped date appearing on the envelope, which Section 3, Rule 13 treats as the date of filing. Since the envelope forms part of the records and carries the presumption that the date stamped on it was done in the course of official duties regularly performed, no grave abuse of discretion can be imputed to the RTC in adopting October 5, 2015 as the date of filing. The Court likewise found no reason to deviate from the CA's conclusion, and the Republic failed to convince the Court that it was entitled to liberality in applying the Rules.

• Governing Rule on Proof of Filing: The parties and the CA erroneously relied on Section 12, now Section 16, Rule 13, which by its unequivocal wording applies only when a pleading or other court submission is claimed to have been filed but, for some reason, cannot be found in the records — hence the need for proof of its filing. That was not the situation, because the Republic's Notice of Appeal existed on record and was befogged only with doubts as to when it was filed. Section 3, Rule 13 was therefore apropos: the date of mailing, as shown by the post office stamp on the envelope or the registry receipt, is considered the date of filing, and the envelope is attached to the record. The filing date can thus be proved either by the post stamp on the envelope or by the registry receipt.

• Probative Value of the OSG Inner Registered Sack Bill: Contrary to the CA's ruling, the photocopy of the OSG Inner Registered Sack Bill cannot be equated to a registry receipt nor given probative value. Unlike a registry receipt, the Sack Bill was not issued or signed by the postmaster or any authorized receiving personnel of the concerned post office and was therefore unverified to be authentic. It was merely a list of mail matters supposedly sent out by the OSG with corresponding entry and registry numbers, addressees, and posting dates, stamped "ERMITA POST OFFICE Registered Mail AUG 18 2015." Several important entries were left blank: the name of the dispatching clerk/witness, "SACK BILL NO.," "PAGE [NO.]," "LOCK NO.," and, more importantly, the total number of articles received by the post office and the signature of the "RECEIVING POSTMASTER" or authorized personnel. Even admitting its authenticity, the Sack Bill could not be a sufficient basis to conclude that the mail matter pertaining to the Notice of Appeal was actually dispatched and received by the Ermita Post Office on August 18, 2015; no reasonable mind would rely upon a document with several missing relevant entries.

• Sufficiency of the Postmaster's Certification: The Certification issued by the Ermita Post Office postmaster did not suffice to prove that the Notice of Appeal was filed on August 18, 2015, given that a different date appeared on the envelope containing the pleading. Under Section 3, Rule 13, the date of filing is shown either in the post office stamp on the envelope or the registry receipt. While the postmaster's certification is usually sufficient proof of mailing, its evidentiary value is different in this case because it was not merely intended to prove the fact of mailing but to prove that the date stamped on the envelope was either incorrect due to the post office's inadvertence or not stamped by the post office. The envelope and the date appearing on it form part of the records and carry the presumption that the date stamped was done in the course of official duties regularly performed, unless proven otherwise. The Certification was bereft of any explanation as to the discrepancy between the date appearing on the envelope and the date stated in the Certification. Moreover, the Republic provided no means of ascertaining whether the RTC erred in appreciating the genuineness of the date on the envelope, since it did not attach the Notice of Appeal with the affidavit of service, if any, and the subject envelope, nor even the pertinent RTC Orders; the Court was thus constrained to uphold the RTC's factual findings, the Court not being a trier of facts and factual issues generally not being entertainable in a Rule 45 petition. The Republic could have conveniently presented the registry receipt corresponding to its Notice of Appeal, which would have constituted the best evidence of its claim, even if a different date appeared on the envelope; its failure to present the original receipt, without explanation, led to the conclusion that such evidence would operate to its prejudice and support the case of the adversary. Finally, every plea for a liberal construction of the rules must at least be accompanied by an explanation of why the party failed to comply with the rules and by a justification for the requested liberality; the Republic offered no explanation for its failure to present any competent proof of the Notice of Appeal's date of filing in accordance with Section 3, Rule 13.

• Proof of Filing by Registered Mail — Under Section 3, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, the date of mailing of a pleading, as shown by the post office stamp on the envelope or the registry receipt, is considered the date of its filing, and the envelope is attached to the record of the case. The requirement under Section 16 (formerly Section 12), Rule 13 of a registry receipt and an affidavit of the person who mailed the pleading applies only when the pleading or court submission is claimed to have been filed but cannot be found in the records. In this case, because the Notice of Appeal was extant on record and only the date of its filing was in doubt, Section 3, Rule 13 governed, and the post office-stamped date on the envelope controlled.

• Presumption of Regularity of the Post Office Stamp — The envelope and the date appearing on it are made part of the records and carry the presumption that the date stamped on it was done in the course of official duties that have been regularly performed, unless proven otherwise. The Court applied this presumption in favor of the October 5, 2015 stamp on the envelope, which the Republic failed to rebut.

• Evidentiary Value of a Postmaster's Certification — While a postmaster's certification is usually sufficient proof of mailing, its evidentiary value differs when it is not merely intended to prove the fact of mailing but to prove that the date stamped on the pleading's envelope was either incorrect due to the post office's inadvertence or not stamped by the post office. Such a certification must explain the discrepancy between the date on the envelope and the date stated therein; absent such explanation, it does not overcome the stamped date.

• Registry Receipt as Best Evidence of Timely Filing — A party claiming timely filing by registered mail may present the registry receipt corresponding to the pleading, which constitutes the best evidence of the claim even if a different date appears on the envelope. Failure to present the original receipt without explanation gives rise to the conclusion that such evidence would operate to the party's prejudice and support the adversary's case.

• Liberal Construction of the Rules — Every plea for a liberal construction of the rules must at least be accompanied by an explanation of why the party failed to comply with the rules and by a justification for the requested liberality. The Republic's failure to offer any explanation for its failure to present competent proof of the date of filing precluded relief.

• Rule 45 and Factual Findings — The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts, and factual issues generally cannot be entertained in a Rule 45 petition. Where the petitioner failed to attach the documents necessary for the Court to evaluate the lower court's appreciation of evidence, the Court is constrained to uphold the factual findings of the tribunal that actually saw the questioned documents.

• "The filing date of a pleading submitted to the court through registered mail is proved by the post office-stamped date appearing on the envelope of the pleading or that stated in the registry receipt." — This opening pronouncement states the ratio decidendi of the Resolution and supplies the controlling rule on proof of the date of filing by registered mail.

• "Gleaned from its unequivocal wordings, the provision applies only when a pleading or any other court submission is claimed to have been filed, but for some reason, such document cannot be found in the records; hence, the need for proof of its filing." — This passage delimits the scope of Section 16 (formerly Section 12), Rule 13, correcting the erroneous reliance of the parties and the Court of Appeals on that provision.

• "We stress, the envelope and the date appearing on it is made part of the records; hence, it carries the presumption that the date stamped on it was done in the course of the official duties that have been regularly performed, unless proven otherwise." — This defines the presumption of regularity attaching to the post office stamp on the envelope, which the Republic's evidence failed to rebut.

• "Every plea for a liberal construction of the rules must at least be accompanied by an explanation of why the party failed to comply with the rules and by a justification for the requested liberality." — This states the standard governing pleas for liberal application of the Rules of Court, which the Republic failed to satisfy.

• Heirs of the Late Atty. Edilberto C. Pama, Sr. vs. Heirs of the Late Arnaldo and Irene Bautista, G.R. No. 226534, January 31, 2018 — Cited for the interpretation of what is now Section 16, Rule 13, and for the rule governing the discrepancy between the date appearing on the envelope and the date stated in a postmaster's certification.
• Eureka Personnel & Management Services, Inc. vs. Valencia, 610 Phil. 444, 454 (2009) — Cited for the rule that the envelope and the date appearing on it carry the presumption that the date stamped was done in the course of official duties regularly performed, and for the treatment of a postmaster's certification where a discrepancy exists.
• Mangahas vs. CA, 558 Phil. 61, 80 (2008) — Cited in connection with the discrepancy between the stamped date and the certification, and for the consequence of a party's failure to present the best evidence of timely filing.
• Pascual vs. Burgos, 776 Phil. 167, 182 (2016) — Cited for the rule that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts and that factual issues generally cannot be entertained in a Rule 45 petition.
• Binga Hydroelectric Plant, Inc. vs. Commission on Audit, 836 Phil. 46, 54 (2018) — Cited for the requirement that a plea for liberal construction of the rules be accompanied by an explanation of the failure to comply and a justification for the requested liberality.

• Section 3, Rule 13, Rules of Court — Manner of filing. The provision states that the date of mailing of pleadings and other court submissions, as shown by the post office stamp on the envelope or the registry receipt, shall be considered as the date of their filing, and that the envelope shall be attached to the record of the case. The Court applied this provision in holding that the October 5, 2015 post office stamp on the envelope was the controlling date of filing.
• Section 16 (formerly Section 12), Rule 13, Rules of Court — Proof of filing. The provision requires that filing by registered mail be proved by the registry receipt and by the affidavit of the person who mailed the pleading, containing a full statement of the date and place of deposit of the mail. The Court clarified that this provision applies only when the pleading is not in the record, and held it inapplicable because the Republic's Notice of Appeal existed on record.
• A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC, "2019 Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure" (May 1, 2020) — Cited as the source of the renumbering of Section 12 to Section 16, Rule 13, which the Court referenced in rectifying the parties' and the CA's reliance on the old provision.

Leonen, SAJ. (Chairperson), Lazaro-Javier, J. Lopez, and Kho, Jr., JJ., concur.