G.R. No. 159358 7 of 10 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/159358.htm the CA (as the court essentially tasked with factual review) are in conflict with one [14] another. In the present case, no conflict in the factual rulings exists; the CA affirmed the NLRCs conclusion that Eurekas appeal was filed out of time based on the registry return card, found in the NLRC records, that shows on its face the date November 21, 1999 as the date of receipt. We find no reason to disturb this factual finding as the registry return receipt is a document that speaks for itself as evidence of when the registered mail reached the recipient-addressee. As our discussion below will show, its evidentiary worth is more than a subsequent certification that counters what the registry return card plainly states. Certification cannot overcome presumption of regularity Even if the postmasters certification were to merit serious consideration by this Court, we cannot avoid the legal reality that the registry return card is considered as the [15] official NLRC record evidencing service by mail. This card carries the presumption that it was prepared in the course of official duties that have been regularly performed; in [16] this sense, it is presumed to be accurate, unless proven otherwise, 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. [18] Court of Appeals: [17] As we stated in Mangahas v. There is a presumption that official duties have been regularly performed. On this basis, we have ruled in previous cases that the Postmasters certification is sufficient evidence of the fact of mailing. This presumption, however, is disputable. In this case, the Affidavit/Certification of the alleged Assistant Postmaster cannot give rise to such a presumption, for not only does it attest to an irregularity in the performance of official duties (i.e., mistake in stamping the date on the registered mail), it is essentially hearsay evidence. In this case and in like manner, while a postmasters certification is usually sufficient 1/28/2016 12:50 PM