This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2001-08-15 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| We are not persuaded. The return card bears the signature of Atty. Mijares III, unequivocally showing receipt of the assailed decision on 20 November 1998. As between the bare denial of an attorney of his receipt of the notice of judgment and the positive assertion of a postal official whose duty it is to send such notices, the choice is not difficult, for the attorney's denial certainly cannot prevail over the contrary statement of postal officials based on official records. For one thing, postal officials enjoy the presumption, without clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, to have regularly performed their official duty and that they have acted in good faith.[7] Omnia praesumuntur rite et solemniter esse acta donec probetur in contrarium. All things are presumed to have been done correctly and with due formality until the contrary is proved.[8] For another reason, mails are presumed to have been properly delivered and received by the addressee "in the regular course of the mail."[9] These juris tantum presumptions stand even against the most well-reasoned allegations pointing to some possible irregularity or anomaly. It is petitioner's burden to overcome the presumptions by sufficient evidence, and so far we have not seen anything in the record to support petitioner and its counsel's charges of anomaly beyond their bare allegations. | |||||