G.R. No. 159358 8 of 10 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/159358.htm proof of mailing, its evidentiary value must be differentiated from the situation presently before us where the postmasters certification is intended to prove that the post office had committed a mistake in placing the date of receipt on the registry return card. In other words, the Postmasters certification is offered to overcome the presumption that the Malate Post Office regularly performed its official duties when the registry return card was filled up by the recipient of the labor arbiters decision with November 21, 1999 as the date of receipt. We find it significant that both the petitioner and the postmasters certification failed to show that the Malate Post Office committed an inadvertence in handling the registry return card so that a corrective certification from the Postmaster was necessary. In the absence of such justification for the certification, we are compelled to deny it of any evidentiary value for the purpose it was submitted. In light of this conclusion, we find it unnecessary to discuss the validity of Eurekas appeal bond. WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby DENY the petition and AFFIRM the Court of Appeals Decision dated March 28, 2003, and Resolution of August 7, 2003, in CA-G.R. SP No. 61553. Costs against the petitioner. SO ORDERED. ARTURO D. BRION Associate Justice WE CONCUR: LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice Chairperson CONCHITA CARPIO-MORALES Associate Justice MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice 1/28/2016 12:50 PM