G.R. No. 173283. September 17, 2008.
SCENARIOS, INC. and/or RHOTZIV BAGO, Petitioners, versus JELLY VINLUAN, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Jelly Vinluan filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and monetary claims against petitioners Scenarios, Inc. and its officers. The labor arbiter sent summons and notices of hearing via registered mail to the company’s address. The summons addressed to “Mr. Jess Jimenez” at the company address was returned with “RETURN TO SENDER” and “UNCLAIMED” markings. Notices for hearings were also sent. Petitioners failed to appear, leading the labor arbiter to deem their right to file a position paper waived. The labor arbiter subsequently ruled in favor of Vinluan, ordering reinstatement and backwages.
Petitioners claimed they only learned of the case upon service of the writ of execution. They appealed to the NLRC, which remanded the case for proper service of summons, finding no proof of receipt. The Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC, reinstating the labor arbiter’s decision. It held that the registry return and a postmaster certification showing delivery of the decision to the company address constituted valid service, making the appeal belated. Petitioners filed this Supreme Court petition, arguing denial of due process due to invalid service.

ISSUE

Whether petitioners were denied due process on account of invalid service of summons and notices.

RULING

No. The service of summons and notices was valid, and petitioners were not denied due process. Service in NLRC proceedings is governed by Sections 5 and 6, Rule III of the New NLRC Rules of Procedure. Service by registered mail is complete upon the addressee’s receipt. However, if the addressee fails to claim the mail within five days from the postmaster’s first notice, service takes effect after such period. The registry return receipt for the summons marked “UNCLAIMED” is prima facie proof of the facts stated therein.
The law presumes the regularity of official duty, including the quasi-judicial proceedings and service of notices by the NLRC. Petitioners failed to rebut this presumption with competent evidence. The certifications from the Quezon City Central Post Office established that notices and a copy of the decision were delivered to and received at the petitioners’ office address. This constitutes valid service. Petitioners’ negligence in claiming their mail or informing the post office of a change of address does not invalidate the service. Consequently, the labor arbiter acquired jurisdiction, and the decision became final due to petitioners’ belated appeal.