favor.  The Court of Appeals stated that it is a settled rule that in case of doubt, the scales of justice must be tilted in favor of the employee.             On petitioner’s claim that the petition for certiorari was filed out of time, the Court of Appeals ruled that the provisions of law pertinent to the issue were Sections 9 and 10, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.   The Court of Appeals held that petitioner failed to prove that Anita’s counsel received the first notice of service of the 3 February 1999 resolution of the NLRC.  The Court of Appeals stated that except for petitioner’s allegation that Anita’s counsel received the first, second, and third notices, and the presentation of the certified true copy of the second notice, there is no sufficient proof that Anita’s counsel received the first notice.   The Court of Appeals also stated that petitioner should have presented the postmaster’s certification on the sending of the first notice, which should include the data not only on whether the corresponding notice was issued or sent but also on how, when and to whom delivery of the notice was made.  The Court of Appeals held that with petitioner’s failure to adduce the required conclusive proof that the postmaster sent the first notice to Anita’s counsel, the conclusion was ineluctable that Anita’s counsel did not receive the first notice.  The Court of Appeals held that there was no way in this case to determine the reckoning date of the period for the filing of the petition for certiorari.             Hence, petitioner filed the present petition.             The Issues