CASE DIGEST
Republic v. Salinas
G.R. No. 238308 (Resolutions), [October 12,
2022]
SECOND, LOPEZ, M.V
Notice of Appeal; Filing of Pleading
The filing date of a pleading submitted
to the court through registered mail is proved by the post office-stamped date appearing
on the envelope of the pleading or that stated in the registry receipt.
A Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage filed by respondent Teresita I. Salinas was granted by the RTC. The Republic filed a motion for reconsideration (MR) but was denied in an Order which it received on August 4, 2015. It, thus, had until August 19, 2015 to file an appeal. However, the RTC received a Notice of Appeal via registered mail, contained in an envelope rubber stamped with the date "October 5, 2015," which it found to be imprinted by the postmaster. Thus, the RTC denied the Republic's Notice of Appeal for being filed late.
The CA found no grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the RTC in denying the Notice of Appeal for being
filed beyond the 15-day reglementary period. The CA considered the OSG Inner Registered
Sack Bill akin to a registry receipt. However, the CA observed that the
Republic failed to present an affidavit of the person who purportedly mailed
the Notice of Appeal as required under Section 12, Rule 13 of the Rules.
Whether or not the CA 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.
NO.
No grave abuse of discretion can be imputed to the RTC in considering the date
stamped on the envelope of the Republic's Notice of Appeal, which was October
5, 2015, as the date of the pleading's filing.
The pleading's filing date can be proved either by:
2.1.
the post stamp on the envelope, which is considered part of the records; or
2.2. the registry receipt
Contrary to the CA's ruling, the photocopy of the OSG
Inner Registered Sack Bill cannot be equated to a registry receipt nor given
probative value. Unlike a registry receipt, the OSG's Inner Registered Sack
Bill was not issued or signed by the postmaster or any authorized receiving personnel
of the concerned post office; hence, unverified to be authentic.
In addition, the Republic could have conveniently presented
the registry receipt corresponding to its Notice of Appeal, which would have
constituted the best evidence of its claim that it filed its Notice of Appeal
on August 18, 2015, even if a different date appears on the envelope. Unfortunately,
the Republic failed to present such original receipt nor has it offered any
explanation for its failure to do so, which only leads to a conclusion that
such evidence would operate to its prejudice and support the case of the
adversary.
No comments:
Post a Comment