This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2010-11-17 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Timeliness of an appeal is a factual issue. It requires a review or evaluation of the evidence which would show when the appeal was actually mailed to and received by the NLRC.[13] In this case, to prove that it mailed the notice of appeal and appeal memorandum on October 27, 1997, instead of October 28, 1997, as shown by the stamped date on the envelope, petitioner presented Registry Receipt No. 34581 bearing the earlier date. | |||||
|
2009-09-08 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The petitioner did not also obtain the consent of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) to his petition for certiorari. At the very least, he should have furnished a copy of the petition for certiorari to the OSG prior to the filing thereof,[8] but even that he did not do. Thereby, he violated Section 35(l), Chapter 12, Title III of Book IV of Executive Order No. 292 (The Administrative Code of 1987), which mandates the OSG to represent "the Government in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals in all criminal proceedings; represent the Government and its officers in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, and all other courts or tribunals in all civil actions and special proceedings in which the Government or any officer thereof in his official capacity is a party." | |||||
|
2009-07-15 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Eureka's petition essentially asks the Court to resolve whether its appeal with the NLRC was filed within the prescribed period. This issue is not a novel one as we have had occasion to rule on this same issue in Mangahas v. Court of Appeals[12] where we held that timeliness of an appeal is a factual issue that requires a review of the evidence presented on when the appeal was actually filed. | |||||
|
2009-07-15 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Even if the postmaster's certification were to merit serious consideration by this Court, we cannot avoid the legal reality that the registry return card is considered as the official NLRC record evidencing service by mail.[15] This card carries the presumption that it was prepared in the course of official duties that have been regularly performed; in this sense, it is presumed to be accurate, unless proven otherwise,[16] and should be distinguished from a mere written record or note secured by a party to prove a self-serving point. This latter record or note, not being a regular record in the usual course of business, is open to easy fabrication and cannot be accepted and trusted at face value; as Valencia correctly noted, it was not even under oath nor under seal, aside from the fact that it does not mention the name of the Postmaster of the Malate Post Office. Thus, it does not carry the same level of evidentiary integrity that an official record enjoys, particularly when it seeks to impugn what the official record establishes.[17] As we stated in Mangahas v. Court of Appeals:[18] | |||||