G.R. No. 238308 . October 12, 2022
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. TERESITA I. SALINAS, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

This case originated from a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage filed by respondent Teresita Salinas, which was granted by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila. The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), received the order denying its motion for reconsideration on August 4, 2015, giving it until August 19, 2015, to file an appeal. The RTC received the Republic’s Notice of Appeal via registered mail in an envelope stamped “October 5, 2015.” Consequently, the RTC denied the Notice of Appeal as filed out of time. The Republic moved for reconsideration, submitting an OSG Inner Registered Sack Bill dated August 18, 2015, and a Certification from the Ermita Post Office Postmaster stating the Notice was posted on that date. The RTC denied the motion.
The Republic elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals (CA) via a petition for certiorari. The CA dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the RTC. While the CA considered the Sack Bill akin to a registry receipt, it ruled the Republic failed to comply with the requirement under the Rules of Court to submit an affidavit of the person who mailed the pleading. The CA held that without this affidavit, there was insufficient proof that the appeal was filed on time. The Republic’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this Petition for Review.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals 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.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the CA’s ruling. The Court clarified the applicable rule. The issue was not proving the existence of a filed pleading (governed by Section 16, Rule 13 on “Proof of Filing”), but determining the date of its filing. For this, Section 3, Rule 13 is controlling. It states that for pleadings filed by registered mail, the date of mailing shown by the post office stamp on the envelope or the registry receipt is considered the date of filing. The envelope must be attached to the case record. Here, the envelope attached to the record bore the post office stamp “October 5, 2015,” which was beyond the August 19, 2015 deadline. This stamp created a presumption that it was the date of mailing.
The Republic’s evidence—the Inner Registered Sack Bill and the Postmaster’s Certification—failed to rebut this presumption. The Sack Bill was an internal OSG document, not the official registry receipt issued by the post office to the sender. The Certification, while from the Postmaster, was issued months later and did not categorically state that the specific envelope received by the court was mailed on August 18. It could not prevail over the contemporaneous postmark on the envelope itself. The Court emphasized that the date stamped on the envelope by the post office is the best evidence of the mailing date. Since the stamped date indicated late filing, the RTC correctly denied the Notice of Appeal, and the CA correctly found no grave abuse of discretion in that order.