G.R. No. 120787 - CARMELITA G. ABRAJANO, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.R E S O L U T I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly, we sent aside the questioned resolution and ordered the appellate court to properly serve the same on therein petitioner. In the case of Aguilar itself, we held that there was no proof of notice to the addressee since: x x x in the Court of Appeals rollo there is no postmaster's certification to the effect that the registered mail was unclaimed by the addressee Atty. Amador and thus returned to sender, after first notice was sent to and received by addressee on a specified date. Thus, there is no conclusive proof that notice was sent to Atty. Amador and actually received by him. Absent such proof, the disputable presumption of completeness of service does not arise as to the registered mail addressed to Atty. Amador. [13] The need for conclusive proof of the first notice was also stressed in Santos vs. Court of Appeals , [14] thus: The finding of respondent court that petitioner and his co-appellees were considered to have received a copy of the decision on 20 June 1995 or five (5) days from the date of first notice of the postmaster, in the absence of conclusive proof as it merely relied on the dates of the notices and the notation `Unclaimed: Return to Sender' stamped on the envelope containing its decision, was clearly arrived at arbitrarily. Consequently, certiorari lies. In this case, all that appears in the Rollo [15] is an envelope that contained the Resolution dated September 20, 1995, and addressed to Atty. Roberto C. Abrajano. Stamped on the front of the envelope are the dates indicating the first, second and third attempts to serve the same on petitioner. At the back thereof are the notations "RTS" (meaning, "Return To Sender"), "UNCLAIMED," and "ALWAYS NOBODY HOME." Said envelope, as we have seen above, does not constitute sufficient proof of completeness of service. The fact is, no certification from the postmaster that first notice was sent by him, and actually received by petitioner, appears on record, a point the Solicitor General himself concedes. [16] On the other hand, attached as Annex 2 [17] to petitioner's Omnibus Motion is a certification dated October 25, 1996 from Postmaster Joseph O. Edradan of the Antipolo Post Office stating that - x x x eversince, [sic] the letter carrier assigned in that area [Atty. Roberto Abrajano's address] [,] actually deliver[s] registered mails [sic] to the given address and/or addresses Agent [sic] by schedule (M-W-F) and [does] not issue or serve notices to the addressee because he believed, he was able to speed-up deliveries and at the same time, he minimized congestion as people do not have to line up anymore to claim their registered mails. As there is no conclusive proof of service of the Resolution dated September 20, 1995 denying the petition - indeed, petitioner has produced proof to the contrary - said resolution cannot be deemed final and executory. The entry of judgment must be vacated. We are not prepared, however, to grant petitioner an acquittal. Nevertheless, we con