FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 241497. January 10, 2019.]
JOHN HAY MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, petitioner,vs. RIZZEL D. PASCUA, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated January 10, 2019 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 241497 (John Hay Management Corporation v. Rizzel D. Pascua). — The motion for extension of time to file petition for review on certiorari dated September 3, 2018 is GRANTED. In any event, after review, the Court resolves to DENY the petition and AFFIRM the Court of Appeals' (CA) Decision dated November 27, 2017 and Resolution dated August 8, 2018 in CA-G.R. SP No. 140261 for failure to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in annulling and setting aside the resolutions of the National Labor Relations Commission.
Indeed, the presumption is that the decision was delivered to an authorized agent in the office of respondent's counsel, Atty. Edward Chumawar, in the absence of proof to the contrary. It is likewise a fundamental rule that unless the contrary is proven, official duty is presumed to have been performed regularly and judicial proceedings regularly conducted, which includes the presumption of regularity of service of summons and other notices. The registry return of the registered mail as having been received is prima facie proof of the facts indicated therein. Thus, it was necessary for respondent to rebut that legal presumption with competent and proper evidence. This, she was able to do through a certification from the Provincial Human Resources Management Office of the Bontoc, Mountain Province that Gina Faycho was its employee from January 2, 2014 to December 31, 2014. Clearly, therefore, Gina Faycho was neither a clerk of Atty. Chumawar, nor a person in charge of his office. Hence, her receipt of the Decision on October 10, 2014 cannot be considered as notice to Atty. Chumawar. Since a copy of the Decision was actually delivered to Atty. Chuamawar only on October 13, 2014, it was only on this date that the ten-day period for the filing of respondent's appeal commenced to run. 1
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Court of Appeals Decision dated November 27, 2017, and Resolution dated August 8, 2018 in CA-G.R. SP No. 140261 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. See Genuino Ice Company, Inc. v. Magpantay, G.R. No. 147790, June 27, 2006, 493 SCRA 195, 203.