Scenarios, Inc. and/or Rhotziv Bago vs. Jelly Vinluan

Service of summons and notices by registered mail in NLRC proceedings is deemed complete after five days from the date of first notice of the postmaster if the addressee fails to claim the mail; the return is prima facie proof of service, and the presumption of regularity of official duty sustains such service unless rebutted by competent evidence. Technical rules yield to substantial compliance in quasi-judicial labor proceedings, and due process requires only service reasonably expected to give notice.

Scenarios, Inc. employed Jelly Vinluan as a setman. Rhotziv Bago was impleaded with the corporation in the labor complaint. Service of notices and summons in cases filed before labor arbiters is governed by Sections 5 and 6 of Rule III of the New NLRC Rules of Procedure, as amended by Resolution 3-99, Series of 1999, effective January 1, 2000.

Jelly Vinluan was a former setman of Scenarios, Inc. On 8 August 2000, he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, underpayment of salaries, and nonpayment of benefits against Scenarios, Inc., Rhotziv Bago, and Jess Jimenez. Summons were issued and sent by registered mail to "Mr. Jess Jimenez" at "Scenario, Inc./GMA Complex, EDSA, corner Timog Avenue, Diliman, Quezon City 1104." Notices of hearing were also sent by registered mail separately to Rhotziv Bago and/or Jess Jimenez at the same address.

Petitioners failed to appear at the scheduled hearings, and the labor arbiter deemed their right to file a position paper waived. On 17 November 2000, Vinluan filed his position paper. On 26 April 2001, Labor Arbiter Salimathar Nambi ordered Vinluan's reinstatement to his former position without loss of seniority rights and with full backwages from dismissal up to actual reinstatement, or, if not feasible, separation pay of one month salary per year of service. A writ of execution dated 6 July 2001 was served on Scenarios, Inc. Claiming that this was the first time they became aware of the proceedings, petitioners filed a Notice and Memorandum of Appeal with the NLRC.

The records showed that the envelope containing the summons addressed to Jess Jimenez at Scenarios, Inc./GMA Complex, EDSA, corner Timog Avenue, Diliman, Quezon City 1104 was marked "RETURN TO SENDER" and "UNCLAIMED" and bore the notations "SECOND NOTICE DATE 8/14" and "LAST NOTICE DATE 9/6." An unsigned Registry Return Receipt was attached to the envelope, and Jess Jimenez had been notified at least twice. At the very least, petitioners had five days from the 14 August 2000 notice within which to claim the summons, and because they failed to do so, service was deemed complete at the end of that five-day period. Petitioners alleged that Jess Jimenez was a complete stranger to Scenarios, Inc.; the name Scenarios, Inc. itself appeared on the face of the letter envelope, and the labor arbiter could only rely on the name and address indicated by respondent in the complaint.

Excluding the mandatory conference scheduled on 25 August 2000, five dates were set by the labor arbiter for hearing: 25 August 2000, 5 September 2000, 2 October 2000, 17 October 2000, and 17 November 2000. Per handwritten notation in the notices, they had all been sent by registered mail to either Jess Jimenez and/or Rhotziv Bago and to respondent. While no registry return receipts were attached to the notices sent to petitioners, certifications from the Quezon City Central Post Office indicated that at least two notices were delivered at the address indicated therein, one received on 17 October 2000 and another on 25 October 2000, both by a certain Mr. M. Sulit. The records also indicated that a notice of judgment/decision was served by registered mail on petitioners, delivered on 5 June 2001 and received by a certain S/G Cuevas. The writ of execution was served at the same address written on the summons, notices, and decision, and petitioners did not deny that the processes had been properly sent to their business address.

• Due Process: Petitioners maintained that they were denied due process when the labor arbiter decided the case even in the absence of sufficient proof that the summons and notices were delivered to them.
• Invalid Service of Summons: Petitioners argued that there was no proof that the notices were sent to the addressees, and no certification from the postmaster that notices were delivered and received by them; they further maintained that there was no valid service of summons on Scenarios, Inc. because there was no proof that summons were received by persons authorized to receive them, since Jess Jimenez, the person named in the summons, was a complete stranger to Scenarios, Inc.
• Non-receipt of Notices and Decision: Petitioners likewise maintained that there was no valid service of the notices of hearing and that they did not receive the said notices; they also added that they did not receive a copy of the labor arbiter's decision.

• Due Process: Whether petitioners were denied due process when the labor arbiter decided the case despite alleged insufficient proof of service of summons and notices.
• Service on Corporation: Whether service of summons on Scenarios, Inc. was invalid because Jess Jimenez, the person named in the summons, was a stranger to the corporation.
• Completeness of Service by Registered Mail: Whether service by registered mail was complete where the summons envelope was returned unclaimed and no registry return receipts were attached to the notices.
• Receipt of Notices and Decision: Whether petitioners received the notices of hearing and a copy of the labor arbiter's decision.

• Due Process: No. Petitioners were not denied due process. Service by registered mail was complete after five days from first notice where the mail was unclaimed, and the presumption of regularity stood unrebutted.
• Service on Corporation: No invalidity was established. The name Scenarios, Inc. appeared on the envelope; the labor arbiter could rely on the complaint's address; whether Jimenez was a stranger was a factual matter not resolved, and substantial compliance sufficed.
• Completeness of Service by Registered Mail: Yes. The unclaimed envelope and postal certifications made service complete; the return was prima facie proof.
• Receipt of Notices and Decision: Yes. Postal certifications showed two notices received by M. Sulit and the decision received by S/G Cuevas, and petitioners failed to rebut the presumption of regular service.

• Due Process: Sections 5 and 6 of Rule III of the New NLRC Rules of Procedure govern service. Section 5 allows service by registered mail. Section 6 provides that service by registered mail is complete upon receipt by the addressee or his agent; if the addressee fails to claim the mail from the post office within five days from the date of first notice of the postmaster, service takes effect after such time. The return is prima facie proof of the facts indicated. The presumption of regularity of official duty includes the presumption of regularity of service of summons and other notices. The envelope containing the summons was marked "RETURN TO SENDER" and "UNCLAIMED" with notations "SECOND NOTICE DATE 8/14" and "LAST NOTICE DATE 9/6"; an unsigned Registry Return Receipt was attached; Jess Jimenez had been notified at least twice. At the very least, petitioners had five days from the 14 August 2000 notice to claim the summons, and their failure to do so made service complete at the end of that period. Petitioners failed to rebut the presumption with competent and proper evidence. Thus, no denial of due process.
• Service on Corporation: Petitioners argued that Jess Jimenez was a stranger to Scenarios, Inc., so no valid service was made on the corporation. This is a factual matter the Court was not in a position to resolve. The name Scenarios, Inc. itself was mentioned on the face of the letter envelope. When the summons was sent, the labor arbiter could only rely on the name and address indicated by respondent in the complaint; there was no way to determine at that point whether Jess Jimenez was an employee or officer of Scenarios, Inc. Moreover, technical rules of procedure are not strictly applied in quasi-judicial proceedings; only substantial compliance is required. Due process requires service such as may reasonably be expected to give the notice desired. Petitioners did not deny that the summons and notices had been properly sent to their business address, and even the writ of execution was served at the same address. Thus, no invalid service was established.
• Completeness of Service by Registered Mail: The unclaimed envelope and the postal certifications established completeness. Section 6 provides that if the addressee fails to claim the mail within five days from the first notice, service takes effect after such time. The return marked "UNCLAIMED" was prima facie proof. Although no registry return receipts were attached to the notices sent to petitioners, certifications from the Quezon City Central Post Office indicated that at least two notices were delivered at the address indicated, one received on 17 October 2000 and another on 25 October 2000, both by Mr. M. Sulit. The registry return receipt states that a registered article must not be delivered to anyone but the addressee, or upon the addressee's written order; thus, the persons who received the notice were presumably able to present a written authorization, and the notices could be assumed duly received in the ordinary course of events. Bare assertions of non-receipt are not proof. Service was therefore complete.
• Receipt of Notices and Decision: The records showed five hearing dates set by the labor arbiter: 25 August 2000, 5 September 2000, 2 October 2000, 17 October 2000, and 17 November 2000. The notices were sent by registered mail to either Jess Jimenez and/or Rhotziv Bago and to respondent. Certifications from the Quezon City Central Post Office indicated that at least two notices were delivered, one on 17 October 2000 and another on 25 October 2000, both received by Mr. M. Sulit. A notice of judgment/decision was served by registered mail on petitioners, delivered on 5 June 2001 and received by S/G Cuevas. These postal certifications are prima facie proof that the processes were delivered to and received by petitioners, and the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty stands. Petitioners failed to prove otherwise. Whether they deliberately ignored the summons and notices or whether those who received them failed to show them due to lack of instruction or negligence was no longer important. Service was completed.

• Service by registered mail in NLRC proceedings — Under Section 6, Rule III of the New NLRC Rules of Procedure, service by registered mail is complete upon receipt by the addressee or his agent; if the addressee fails to claim the mail from the post office within five days from the date of first notice of the postmaster, service takes effect after such time. The return is prima facie proof of the facts indicated. Applied here, the envelope was marked unclaimed; five days from the 14 August 2000 notice lapsed; service was complete.
• Presumption of regularity of official duty — Unless the contrary is proven, official duty is presumed regularly performed and judicial proceedings regularly conducted; this includes service of summons and other notices in quasi-judicial proceedings. Petitioners failed to rebut with competent evidence; bare assertions were insufficient.
• Substantial compliance in quasi-judicial labor proceedings — Technical rules of procedure are not strictly applied in quasi-judicial proceedings; only substantial compliance is required. Due process requires service reasonably expected to give notice. Applied because notices were sent to the business address, the writ was served at the same address, and petitioners did not deny that address.
• Due process in service of notices — The constitutional requirement of due process exacts service such as may reasonably be expected to give the notice desired. Mere allegation of non-receipt is not proof. Applied because postal certifications and the presumption established service.

• "Service by registered mail is complete upon receipt by the addressee or his agent; but if the addressee fails to claim his mail from the post office within five (5) days from the date of first notice of the postmaster, service shall take effect after such time." — This states the controlling rule on completeness of service by registered mail in NLRC proceedings, central to the holding that service was completed despite the unclaimed mail.
• "It is therefore incumbent upon herein petitioners to rebut that legal presumption with competent and proper evidence, for the return of the registered mail as "unclaimed" is prima facie proof of the facts indicated therein." — This places the burden on petitioners to overcome the presumption of regularity and explains why their bare claims of non-receipt failed.
• "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." — This articulates the substantial-compliance standard and the due process measure for service in quasi-judicial labor proceedings.
• "The registry return receipt for the summons marked "UNCLAIMED" and the certifications from the Quezon City Central Post Office that two of the notices and a copy of the decision had been delivered to and received in the premises of petitioners’ office are, under the prevailing rules, enough to convince us that service of said processes and decision was completed." — This is the Court's conclusion that the postal records sufficiently established completed service of the summons, notices, and decision.

• Columbus Philippines Bus Corporation vs. NLRC, 417 Phil. 81, 96 (2001), citing Masagana Concrete Products vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 106916, 313 SCRA 576, 586-587 (1999) — Cited for the rule that service by registered mail is complete after five days from the date of first notice of the postmaster if the addressee fails to claim the mail, and for the presumption of regularity of service.
• Toyota Cubao, Inc. vs. CA, 346 Phil. 181, 188 (1997), citing Boticano vs. Chu, Jr., 148 SCRA 541 — Cited for the due process standard that service must be such as may reasonably be expected to give the notice desired.
• Masagana Concrete Products vs. NLRC, 372 Phil. 459, 472 (1999) — Cited for the rule that a bare allegation is neither proof nor evidence and for the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed.

• Section 5, Rule III, New NLRC Rules of Procedure (as amended by Resolution 3-99, Series of 1999) — Provides that notices or summons and copies of orders, resolutions, or decisions shall be served personally or by registered mail; decisions and final awards shall be served on both parties and their counsel by registered mail. Applied to permit service by registered mail on petitioners.
• Section 6, Rule III, New NLRC Rules of Procedure — Provides that the return is prima facie proof of the facts indicated; service by registered mail is complete upon receipt by the addressee or his agent, but if the addressee fails to claim the mail within five days from the date of first notice of the postmaster, service takes effect after such time. Applied to the unclaimed summons and notices.
• Article 223, Labor Code — Provides that an appeal should be filed within ten (10) days from receipt of the decision. The Court of Appeals relied on this in finding petitioners' appeal belatedly filed on 2 August 2001 after receipt on 5 June 2001; the Supreme Court affirmed.

Leonardo A. Quisumbing (Chairperson), Conchita Carpio Morales, Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., and Arturo D. Brion. No separate concurring opinions are included in the text.