COMPLETENESS OF SERVICE

Section 10, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court provides:

          "SEC. 10. Completeness of service. – Personal service is complete upon actual delivery. Service by ordinary mail is complete upon the expiration of ten (10) days after mailing, unless the court otherwise provides. Service by registered mail is complete upon actual receipt by the addressee, or after five (5) days from the date he received the first notice of the postmaster, whichever date is earlier" (emphasis supplied).

The rule on service by registered mail contemplates two situations:  (1) actual service the completeness of which is determined upon receipt by the addressee of the registered mail; and (2) constructive service the completeness of which is determined upon expiration of five days from the date the addressee received the first notice of the postmaster.⁽ Philemploy Services and Resources, Inc. v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 152616, 31 March 2006, 486 SCRA 302, 321.)

               

           Insofar as constructive service is concerned, there must be conclusive proof that a first notice was duly sent by the postmaster to the addressee. ( Id.; Spouses Aguilar v. Court of Appeals, 369 Phil. 655, 661 (1999). Not only is it required that notice of the registered mail be issued but that it should also be delivered to and received by the addressee. (Spouses Aguilar v. Court of Appeals, supra at 662, citing De la Cruz v. De la Cruz, 160 SCRA 361 (1988). Notably, the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed is not applicable in this situation. It is incumbent upon a party who relies on constructive service to prove that the notice was sent to, and received by, the addressee.( Spouses Aguilar v. Court of Appeals, supra at 662, citing Barrameda v. Castillo, 168 Phil. 170, (1977).

                

        The best evidence to prove that notice was sent would be a certification from the postmaster, who should certify not only that the notice was issued or sent but also as to how, when and to whom the delivery and receipt was made. The mailman may also testify that the notice was actually delivered. (Barrameda v. Castillo, 168 Phil. 170, 173 (1977).)  (Jose Mel Bernarte vs. Phil. Basketball Association (PBA) et al., G.R. No. 192084, September 14, 2011, CARPIO, J.).