did not require appellee Castillo to present the postmaster’s certification that a first notice was sent to Barrameda’s lawyer and that the notice was received by the latter.   Under those circumstances, the trial court’s order dismissing Barrameda’s appeal is fraught with injustice.  (Emphasis supplied)     Here, there is no postmaster’s certification that the registered mail was unclaimed by Atty. Cruz, Anita’s former counsel, and thus returned to sender after the first notice was sent to and actually received by him on a specified date.  Absent such notice, the disputable presumption of completeness of service does not arise and by implication, petitioner could not presume actual receipt by Atty. Cruz.[39]   Under Section 4 of Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the special civil action for certiorari should be instituted within a period of 60 days from notice of the judgment, order, or resolution sought to be assailed. [40]  As there is no conclusive proof of service of the resolution dated 3 February 1999 denying Anita’s motion for reconsideration of the NLRC decision, the resolution cannot be deemed to have become final and executory.  There is no way in the instant case to determine the reckoning date of the period provided by law for the filing of the special civil action for certiorari.   Hence, the Court of Appeals did not lose jurisdiction over Anita’s petition for certiorari filed before it.                   That Anita herself received a copy of the assailed resolution is of no moment.  Section 5(a), Rule III of The New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC provides:               x  x  x  x