Torres v PAGCOR

ELLERY MARCH G. TORRES, PETITIONER, VS. PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ATTY. CARLOS R. BAUTISTA, JR., RESPONDENT.

Facts: Petitioner was a Slot Machine Operations Supervisor (SMOS) of respondent  Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR).  On the basis of an alleged intelligence report of padding of the Credit Meter Readings (CMR) of the slot machines at PAGCOR-Hyatt Manila, then Casino Filipino-Hyatt (CF Hyatt), which involved the slot machine and internal security personnel of respondent PAGCOR, and in connivance with slot machine customers, respondent PAGCOR's Corporate Investigation Unit (CIU) allegedly conducted an investigation to verify the veracity of such report.  The CIU discovered the scheme of CMR padding which was committed by adding zero after the first digit of the actual CMR of a slot machine or adding a digit before the first digit of the actual CMR, e.g., a slot machine with an actual CMR of P5,000.00 will be issued a CMR receipt with the amount of either P50,000.00 or P35,000.00. Based on the CIU's investigation of all the CMR receipts and slot machine jackpot slips issued by CF Hyatt for the months of February and March 2007, the CIU identified the members of the syndicate who were responsible for such CMR padding, which included herein petitioner.

On the same day, another Memorandum of Charges signed by Rogelio Y. Bangsil, Jr., Senior Branch Manager, CF Hyatt Manila, was issued to petitioner informing him of the charge of dishonesty (padding of anomalous SM jackpot receipts).

On May 7, 2007, petitioner wrote Manager Bangsil a letter explanation/refutationof th e charges against him. He denied any involvement or participation in any fraudulent manipulation of the CMR or padding of the slot machine receipts, and he asked for a formal investigation of the accusations against him.

On August 4, 2007 petitioner received the Notice of dismissal signed by the Managing Head of PAGCOR.

On September  14,  2007, petitioner filed with the CSC  a Complaint[13] against PAGCOR and its Chairman Efraim Genuino for illegal dismissal, non-payment of backwages and other benefits. The complaint alleged among others: (1) that he denied all the charges against him; (2) that he did ask for a formal investigation of the accusations against him and for PAGCOR to produce evidence and proofs to substantiate the charges, but respondent PAGCOR did not call for any formal administrative hearing; (3) that he tried to persuade respondent PAGCOR to review and reverse its decision in a letter of reconsideration dated August 13,  2007 addressed to the Chairman, the members of the Board of Directors and the Merit Systems Protection Board; and (4) that no resolution was issued on his letter reconsideration, thus, the filing of the complaint. Petitioner claimed that as a result of  his unlawful, unjustified and illegal termination/dismissal, he was compelled to hire the services of a counsel in order to protect his rights. The CSC denied the appeal. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was also denied. Similarly, his appeal was dismissed for lack of merit.

Issue: Whether or not the sending of the motion for reconsideration via facsimile is a valid mode of filing a letter of reconsideration?

Held:  Sections 37, 38, 39, and 43 of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, which are applicable to this case, respectively provide, to wit:

Section 37.  Finality of Decisions - A decision rendered by heads of agencies whereby a penalty of suspension for not more than thirty days or a fine in an amount not exceeding thirty (30) days' salary is imposed, shall be final and executory. However, if the penalty imposed is suspension exceeding thirty days, or fine in an amount exceeding thirty days’ salary, the same shall be final and executory after the lapse of the reglementary period for filing a motion for reconsideration or an appeal and no such pleading has been filed.

Section 38. Filing of motion for reconsideration. - The party adversely affected by the decision may file a motion for reconsideration with the disciplining  authority who rendered the same within fifteen days from receipt thereof.

Section 39. When deemed filed. - A motion for reconsideration sent by mail shall be deemed filed on the date shown by the postmark on the envelope which shall be attached to the records of the case and in case of personal delivery, the date stamped thereon by the proper office.

Section 43. Filing of Appeals. - Decisions of heads of departments, agencies, provinces, cities, municipalities and other instrumentalities imposing a penalty exceeding thirty (30) days suspension or fine in an amount exceeding thirty (30) days’ salary, maybe appealed to the Commission Proper within a period of fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof.

Clearly, a motion for reconsideration may either be filed by mail or personal delivery.  When a motion for reconsideration was sent by mail, the same shall be deemed filed on the date shown by the postmark on the envelope which shall be attached to the records of the case. On the other hand, in case of personal delivery, the motion is deemed filed on the date stamped thereon by the proper office.  And the movant has 15 days from receipt of the decision within which to file a motion for reconsideration or an appeal therefrom.

Petitioner received a copy of the letter/notice of dismissal on August 4, 2007; thus, the motion for reconsideration should have been submitted either by mail or by personal delivery on or before August 19, 2007.  However, records do not show that petitioner had filed his motion for reconsideration.  In fact, the CSC found that the non-receipt of petitioner's letter reconsideration was duly supported by certifications issued by PAGCOR employees.

Even assuming arguendo that petitioner indeed submitted a letter reconsideration which he claims was sent through a facsimile transmission,  such letter reconsideration  did not toll the period to appeal. The mode used by petitioner in filing his reconsideration is not sanctioned by the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service. As we stated earlier, the motion for reconsideration may be filed only in two ways, either by mail or personal delivery.

Moreover, a facsimile transmission is not considered as an electronic evidence under the Electronic Commerce Act. Petition is denied.