ESTRELLA LLAMAS ATIENZA, PETITIONER, VS. HON. MARIA GRACIA CADIZ-CASACLANG, (IN HER CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 155, RTC – PASIG), LILIA BANARES, BENJAMIN CAYABYAB, GR…

Atienza versus Cadiz-Casaclang

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court filed by Estrella Llamas Atienza against Judge Maria Gracia Cadiz-Casaclang, in her capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch 155 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, and against the private respondents whom the petitioner had earlier charged with libel and slander. The petitioner asks the Supreme Court to annul two orders of the trial court: the order of January 7, 2013, which recalled an earlier order and dismissed her notice of appeal as filed out of time, and the order of March 21, 2013, which denied her motion for reconsideration. The case matters because it fixes the evidentiary weight of a registry return card against a later postmaster's certification, and because it shows when a trial court's error on the timeliness of an appeal ripens into grave abuse of discretion correctible by certiorari.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed a criminal complaint for libel and slander with the Office of the Pasig City Prosecutor against the private respondents and against the Office of the Pasig City Prosecutor itself. On March 12, 2012, the Prosecutor's Office issued a Joint Resolution finding probable cause to charge all respondents with three counts of libel. After the respondents moved for reconsideration, the Prosecutor's Office issued a resolution recommending the dismissal of the complaints and the withdrawal of the information. Acting on the motion to withdraw information, the trial court ordered the withdrawal of the information. The petitioner moved for reconsideration, and the trial court denied the motion in its order of June 8, 2012. On July 20, 2012, the petitioner filed a notice of appeal. The respondents moved to dismiss and expunge the notice of appeal, submitting a certification from the Makati Central Post Office stating that the petitioner's counsel received the June 8, 2012 order on June 28, 2012, which would make the appeal late. The trial court granted the motions in its order of January 7, 2013, recalling its earlier order of August 6, 2012 and dismissing the notice of appeal as filed out of time and without the conformity of the public prosecutor. The trial court denied reconsideration on March 21, 2013. The petitioner then came to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari under Rule 65.

Facts

The petitioner charged several private respondents, together with the Office of the Pasig City Prosecutor, with libel and slander before the Pasig City Prosecutor's Office. On March 12, 2012, the Prosecutor's Office found probable cause to charge all respondents with three counts of libel. The respondents sought reconsideration, and the Prosecutor's Office reversed itself, recommending dismissal of the complaints and withdrawal of the information. The trial court allowed the withdrawal.

The petitioner moved for reconsideration of the withdrawal, but the trial court denied her motion in an order dated June 8, 2012. On July 20, 2012, she filed a notice of appeal. The respondents moved to dismiss and expunge the notice of appeal, relying on a certification from the Makati Central Post Office that the June 8, 2012 order had reached the petitioner's counsel on June 28, 2012, which would place the July 20 notice of appeal beyond the fifteen day reglementary period.

The registry return card, however, showed that the petitioner's counsel received the June 8, 2012 order on July 5, 2012, which would make the notice of appeal timely. The trial court chose to believe the postmaster's certification over the registry return card. It recalled its earlier order, dismissed the notice of appeal as filed out of time, and later denied the petitioner's motion for reconsideration. The petitioner brought the matter to the Supreme Court, arguing that the trial court gave more credence to an unnotarized certification of the postmaster than to the registry return card.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it dismissed the petitioner's notice of appeal as filed out of time.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in giving more weight to the unnotarized certification of the postmaster than to the registry return card as proof of the date the petitioner's counsel received the June 8, 2012 order.

Applicable Provisions

Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, as discussed in the decision, governs the special civil action of certiorari and provides:

A special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court may be resorted to only where there is a clear showing that the court had acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

This provision defines the threshold the petitioner had to cross, and the Court measured the trial court's orders against it.

The decision also relies on the disputable presumption that official duties have been regularly performed, as explained in the cited jurisprudence:

There is a presumption that official duties have been regularly performed. On this basis, we have ruled in previous cases that the Postmaster's certification is sufficient evidence of the fact of mailing. This presumption, however, is disputable.

This presumption is the pivot of the case, because the registry return card is presumed accurate as an official record, while the postmaster's certification sought to contradict that official record.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion when it dismissed the notice of appeal as filed out of time. The Court explained that the abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility. The trial court's reliance on the postmaster's certification to defeat the registry return card met that standard.

On the second issue, the Court held that the registry return card is a document that speaks for itself as evidence of when the registered mail reached the recipient-addressee. It shows that the petitioner's counsel received the June 8, 2012 order on July 5, 2012, so the notice of appeal filed on July 20, 2012 was timely within the fifteen day filing period. The Court adopted the reasoning that the registry return card carries the presumption that it was prepared in the course of official duties regularly performed, and is presumed accurate unless proven otherwise. A mere written record secured by a party to prove a self-serving point, not being a regular record in the usual course of business, is open to easy fabrication and cannot be accepted at face value. The Court noted that the postmaster's certification was not under oath or under seal, and did not even name the Postmaster of the Malate Post Office. It also stressed that the certification was offered to prove that the post office had committed a mistake in placing the date of receipt on the registry return card, and that neither the respondents nor the postmaster showed any inadvertence in handling the card that would justify a corrective certification. In the absence of such justification, the Court denied the certification any evidentiary value for the purpose for which it was submitted.

Doctrine

A registry return card is an official record that speaks for itself as evidence of the date the registered mail reached the addressee. It carries the presumption that official duties were regularly performed and is presumed accurate unless proven otherwise. A postmaster's certification may ordinarily prove the fact of mailing, but when it is offered to contradict the date stamped on the registry return card, it must be shown that the post office actually committed an inadvertence; absent that showing, the certification has no evidentiary value for that purpose. Certiorari under Rule 65 lies where the trial court acts with grave abuse of discretion, meaning an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or action in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility. A trial court that dismisses a timely appeal on the strength of an unsupported certification, in the face of the official record, commits such grave abuse of discretion.

Disposition

The petition was granted due course; the orders of January 7, 2013 and March 21, 2013 were annulled and set aside, and the trial court was ordered to give due course to the petitioner's appeal.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: the registry return card speaks for itself and is presumed regular, and a postmaster's certification that merely contradicts it, without proof of inadvertence, deserves no evidentiary weight. Examiners use this case in remedial law and evidence, on the timeliness of appeals, the disputable presumption of regularity of official duties, and the grave abuse of discretion standard under Rule 65.