THE Supreme Court (SC) has nullified an order of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) dismissing a former employee of the local government of Saint Bernard, Southern Leyte due to improper delivery of the said order.
In a 15-page decision promulgated on January 27, 2025 but only made public on Wednesday, the High Court’s third division through Associate Justice Samuel Gaerlan granted the appeal of Victoria Labastida, the former municipal planning and development officer of Saint Bernard.
The SC held that Labastida did not receive a copy of the ruling that dismissed her from the service, adding that the presumption that a relevant letter was properly delivered does not apply when contradicted by strong evidence.
The CSC earlier dismissed Labastida for gross neglect of duty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
The SC ruling said that the CSC was in the wrong when it dismissed Labastida’s appeal for being filed late.
Records of the case showed that the office of the Mayor of Saint Bernard initially dismissed Labastida on an administrative complaint.
A copy of the June 10, 2016 decision of the CSC was reportedly sent to Labastida by registered mail, as shown by a registry return receipt marked “refused to accept 06-14-16.”
In contesting her dismissal, Labastida argued that she did not receive any copy of the decision, and that she only learned of it on March 8, 2017 when she received a notice of suspension.
Labastida told the High Court in her appeal that the CSC erred in affirming her dismissal.
She said she filed the appeal on March 16, 2017, but the CSC held it was filed beyond the 15-day deadline for an appeal.
Labastida elevated the case to the Court of Appeals but the latter rejected her plea, prompting her to go to the SC.
The High Court in its ruling sided with Labastida and explained that the presumption that a letter was properly delivered, based on a post office registry return receipt, does not apply when strong evidence suggests otherwise.
It explained that presumptions under the Rules on Evidence, specifically that official duties are regularly performed and that mail is properly delivered, can be overturned by strong, opposing evidence.
In this case, the SC held that Labastida denied receiving the decision, shifting the burden of proof to the complainant to show that the decision was actually received.
“Proof of service of the assailed judgment must be clearly established to properly determine the reckoning period for the filing of an appeal.
“In the same vein, the disputable presumptions that the postal officers regularly performed their duties or that letters duly directed and mailed were received in the regular course of mail, do not apply in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary,” the SC added.
The SC also held that under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, mere presentation of a registry return receipt is not enough to prove proper mail service.
It said this must be accompanied by an affidavit from the postmaster confirming when, how, and to whom the delivery of the order was made. With this, the Court remanded the case to the CSC for it to consider Labastida’s appeal.
