In Romulo v. Peralta, the Supreme Court reiterated the strict requirements for serving motions via registered mail. The Court emphasized that to validly serve a motion to dismiss, the sender must provide proof that the recipient actually received the motion. This means submitting an affidavit from the person who mailed the pleading, along with the registry receipt issued by the post office. The decision underscores the importance of meticulously following procedural rules, especially regarding service of pleadings, to ensure fairness and due process in legal proceedings.

Navigating Due Process: When a Motion’s Delivery Fails to Meet Legal Standards

The case revolves around Executive Order (E.O.) No. 253, which established an “open skies” policy in the aviation industry. The PAL Employees Association (PALEA), along with other labor unions, challenged the constitutionality of this E.O., arguing that it infringed upon the legislative powers of Congress. In response, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), representing the government, filed a motion to dismiss the case. However, the trial court denied this motion, citing insufficient proof that the labor unions’ counsel had been properly served with a copy of the motion.

The core issue before the Supreme Court was whether the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying the OSG’s motion to dismiss. The petitioners argued that they had indeed served the motion to the respondents’ counsel via registered mail, thus fulfilling their legal obligation. The Court, however, scrutinized the evidence presented by the OSG, particularly the registry receipt and the affidavit of service, to determine if they met the stringent requirements of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Supreme Court’s analysis centered on Sections 7, 10, and 13 of Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which govern service by mail. Section 10 explicitly states that service by registered mail is complete upon actual receipt by the addressee, or after five (5) days from the date they received the first notice from the postmaster, whichever is earlier. Section 13 further clarifies that proof of service by registered mail requires both an affidavit from the person who mailed the pleading and the registry receipt issued by the mailing office. The Court has consistently held that these requirements must be strictly followed to ensure that the opposing party is duly notified of the pleading.

SEC. 13. Proof of service. – Proof of personal service shall consist of a written admission of the party served, or the official return of the server, or the affidavit of the party serving, containing a full statement of the date, place, and manner of service. If the service is by ordinary mail, proof thereof shall consist of an affidavit of the person mailing of facts showing compliance with section 7 of this Rule. If service is made by registered mail, proof shall be made by such affidavit and the registry receipt issued by the mailing office. The registry return card shall be filed immediately upon its receipt by the sender or in lieu thereof, the unclaimed letter together with the certified or sworn copy of the notice given by the postmaster to the addressee.

The Court referenced prior cases to emphasize the importance of proper notification. In Cayetano v. Cayetano, the Court ruled that actual knowledge of a decision cannot be attributed to the recipient of a registered matter if the registry notice does not indicate that the matter is a copy of the decision. Similarly, in Sapida v. Villanueva, the Court reiterated that it could not presume actual knowledge of an order of denial if the registry notice or return card lacked any indication that the registered matter was a copy of the order. The Supreme Court uses these cases to build a solid legal precedence regarding notification.

In this case, the OSG initially presented only a photocopy of the registry return receipt, which did not clearly indicate that the mailed matter was, in fact, a copy of the motion to dismiss. While the OSG later submitted an affidavit from Josephine S. Masangkay-Bayongan, the Court noted that the affidavit stated Bayongan merely “caused to be served” the motion, rather than explicitly stating that she personally mailed it. This distinction proved crucial, as the rule requires an affidavit from “the person mailing” the motion.

Considering these deficiencies, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to dismiss. Grave abuse of discretion, as defined by the Court, implies an exercise of power in an arbitrary or despotic manner, amounting to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law. Because the OSG failed to provide sufficient proof of proper service, the trial court’s decision was deemed to be in accordance with the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The practical implications of this decision are significant for legal practitioners. It serves as a reminder of the necessity of strict compliance with procedural rules, especially those concerning service of pleadings. Failure to adhere to these rules can result in the denial of motions, potentially prolonging litigation and increasing costs. Lawyers must ensure that they maintain meticulous records of service, including affidavits from the individuals who actually mailed the pleadings and the original registry receipts. Otherwise, their motions will be subject to denial.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the government’s motion to dismiss due to insufficient proof of service to the opposing party.
What is required to prove service by registered mail?	Proof of service by registered mail requires an affidavit from the person who mailed the pleading, detailing the date, place, and manner of service, along with the registry receipt issued by the mailing office.
What did the affidavit in this case lack?	The affidavit in this case lacked a clear statement that the affiant was the person who actually mailed the motion to dismiss. It only stated that she “caused to be served” the motion.
Why was a photocopy of the registry receipt insufficient?	The photocopy of the registry receipt was deemed insufficient because it did not clearly indicate that the registered matter was, in fact, a copy of the motion to dismiss.
What is the definition of grave abuse of discretion?	Grave abuse of discretion is defined as the exercise of power in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, amounting to an invasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined.
What was the Supreme Court’s ruling in this case?	The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to dismiss because the government failed to provide sufficient proof of proper service.
What is the practical implication of this ruling for lawyers?	This ruling emphasizes the importance of strict compliance with procedural rules regarding service of pleadings, as failure to do so can result in the denial of motions and prolong litigation.
What happens if the registry notice doesn’t specify the document enclosed?	If the registry notice or return card does not indicate that the registered matter is a specific document, such as a court order, actual knowledge of the document’s contents cannot be presumed.

Romulo v. Peralta serves as a crucial reminder of the importance of meticulous attention to detail in legal practice. Proper service of pleadings is a cornerstone of due process, and failure to comply with the prescribed rules can have significant consequences. This case reinforces the need for legal professionals to ensure that all aspects of service are properly documented and executed to avoid procedural pitfalls.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: THE HON. ALBERTO ROMULO, SUBSTITUTED BY THE HON. EDUARDO I. ERMITA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, THE HON. LEANDRO MENDOZA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATION, THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATION (DOTC, THE CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD (CAB), AND THE CAB CHAIRMAN, PETITIONERS, VS. THE HON. JUDGE EDUARDO B. PERALTA, PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION, BRANCH 17, MANILA, PAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (PALEA), NATIONAL LABOR UNION AND THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR UNIONS, RESPONDENTS., G.R. NO. 165665, January 31, 2007