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 PhP5,000.00 will be issued a CMR receipt with the amount of either
PhP50,000.00 or PhP35,000.00. 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.
CIU
served petitioner with a Memorandum of Charges for dishonesty, serious
misconduct, fraud and violation of office rules and regulations which were
considered grave offenses where the penalty imposable is dismissal.
Petitioner then 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. Thereafter, the CSC, treating petitioner's
complaint as an appeal from the PAGCOR's decision dismissing petitioner from
the service, issued Resolution No. 081204 denying petitioner's appeal, citing
that:
… the CSC found that the
issue for resolution was whether petitioner's appeal had already prescribed
which the former answered in the positive. The CSC did not give credit to
petitioner's claim that he sent a facsimile transmission of his letter
reconsideration within the period prescribed by the Uniform Rules on
Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.
It found PAGCOR's denial of having received petitioner's letter more
credible as it was supported by certifications issued by its employees. It
found that a verification of one of the telephone numbers where petitioner
allegedly sent his letter reconsideration disclosed that such number did not
belong to the PAGCOR's Office of the Board of Directors; and that petitioner
should have mentioned about the alleged facsimile transmission at the first
instance when he filed his complaint and not only when respondent PAGCOR raised
the issue of prescription in its Comment.”
Hence, this petition.
Issue:
Whether the sending of the letter of
reconsideration by means of fax machine can be considered a valid and legal
mode of filing a letter of reconsideration?
Held:
Petition
has no merit.
Petitioner
contends that he filed his letter reconsideration of his dismissal on August
13, 2007, which was within the 15-day period for filing the same; and that he
did so by means of a facsimile transmission sent to the PAGCOR's Office of the
Board of Directors. He claims that the sending of documents thru electronic
data message, which includes facsimile, is sanctioned under Republic Act No.
8792, the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000. Petitioner further contends that
since his letter reconsideration was not acted upon by PAGCOR, he then filed
his complaint before the CSC.
The
Court citing different provisions of the Revised Uniform Rules on
Administrative Cases in the Civil Service particularly highlighted that 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.
Furthermore, the Court in Garvida v. Sales,
Jr., 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.
x x x 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. x x x
Moreover,
a facsimile transmission is not considered as an electronic evidence under the
Electronic Commerce Act. In MCC
Industrial Sales Corporation v. Ssangyong Corporation, the Court determined the
question of whether the original facsimile transmissions are "electronic
data messages" or "electronic documents" within the context of
the Electronic Commerce Act, and said:
“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.”
Petition denied.
____________________________
Full text of the case available at: http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/december2011/193531.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment