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 eitherP50,000.00 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). Petitioner was then required to explain in writing within
seventy-two (72) hours from receipt thereof why he should not be sanctioned or
dismissed. Petitioner was placed under preventive suspension effective
immediately until further orders.
On May 7, 2007, petitioner
wrote Manager Bangsil a letter explanation/refutation of the
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 a letter dated
August 2, 2007 from Atty. Lizette F. Mortel, Managing Head of PAGCOR's Human
Resource and Development Department, dismissing him from the service.
On
September 14, 2007, petitioner filed with the CSC a Complaint against
PAGCOR and its Chairman Efraim Genuino for illegal dismissal, non-payment of
backwages and other benefits. The complaint alleged among other things, 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 that
no resolution was issued on his letter reconsideration.
Thereafter,
the CSC dismissed the complaint on the ground that the same has already
prescribed.
After the
denial of his Motion for Reconsideration, Torres elevated the case to the Court
of Appeals, which likewise dismissed his petition on the same ground.
Hence, this
appeal.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the sending
of his letter of reconsideration by means of a fax machine is a valid mode of
filing a letter of reconsideration?
DECISION:
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.
In Garvida v. Sales, Jr., we
found inadmissible in evidence the filing of pleadings through fax machines and
ruled that:
A facsimile or fax
transmission is a process involving the transmission and reproduction of
printed and graphic matter by scanning an original copy, one elemental area at
a time, and representing the shade or tone of each area by a specified amount
of electric current. The current is transmitted as a signal over regular
telephone lines or via microwave relay and is used by the receiver to reproduce
an image of the elemental area in the proper position and the correct shade.
The receiver is equipped with a stylus or other device that produces a printed
record on paper referred to as a facsimile.
xxx A facsimile is not a
genuine and authentic pleading. It is, at best, an exact copy preserving all
the marks of an original. Without the original, there is no way of determining
on its face whether the facsimile pleading is genuine and authentic and was
originally signed by the party and his counsel. It may, in fact, be a sham
pleading.xxx
Moreover, a facsimile
transmission is not considered as an electronic evidence under the Electronic
Commerce Act. In MCC Industrial Sales Corporation v. Ssangyong Corporation, We
determined the question of whether the original facsimile transmissions are
"electronic data messages" or "electronic documents" within
the context of the Electronic Commerce Act.
We, therefore, conclude that
the terms "electronic data message" and "electronic
document," as defined under the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000, do not
include a facsimile transmission. Accordingly, a facsimile transmission cannot
be considered as electronic evidence. It is not the functional equivalent of an
original under the Best Evidence Rule and is not admissible as electronic
evidence.
No comments:
Post a Comment