G.R. No. 99434 . September 24, 1991.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON (PHILS.) INC., petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and ALEJO M. VINLUAN, respondents.

FACTS

The petitioner, Johnson & Johnson (Phils.) Inc., assails two Court of Appeals resolutions. The first, dated March 12, 1991, declared service of a prior resolution (dated November 29, 1990) upon the petitioner complete as of February 28, 1991, pursuant to Section 8, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court. This was based on the fact that copies sent to both its counsel and its own address were returned unclaimed by the post office. The second resolution, dated May 10, 1991, denied the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
The petitioner’s counsel contested this, asserting he never received any notice from the post office to claim the registered mail. He maintained his office had a system for claiming all registered mail and submitted a log of received notices covering the relevant period, which did not list any notice for the November 29, 1990 resolution. The private respondent countered that service was correctly deemed complete under the Rules after the petitioner’s failure to claim the mail within five days from the first notice.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the petitioner was constructively served with the November 29, 1990 resolution, thereby making the service complete.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals. The legal logic centers on the proper application of Section 8, Rule 13. The general rule is that service by registered mail is complete only upon actual receipt. The exception—where service is deemed complete upon expiration of five days from the first notice of the postmaster if the mail is unclaimed—applies only upon conclusive proof that such a first notice was duly sent and delivered. This exception involves constructive service, which must be strictly construed.
The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by the post office is not absolute and yields to contrary evidence. Here, the petitioner presented its office log showing no receipt of any claim notice. The only evidence for constructive service was the envelope bearing the notation “Return to Sender: Unclaimed.” This is insufficient. As established in Hernandez v. Navarro, for the exception to apply, there must be competent evidence, such as a postmaster’s certification, not merely that a notice was issued, but specifically detailing how, when, and to whom the delivery of that notice was made. The records lacked any such evidence. Therefore, the Court of Appeals erred in presuming constructive service. Its resolutions were set aside, and it was ordered to effect proper service of the November 29, 1990 resolution upon the petitioner.