View full case

ELLERY MARCH G. TORRES v. PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT

FACTS:

Petitioner Ellery March G. Torres worked as a Slot Machine Operations Supervisor (SMOS) for respondent Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR). PAGCOR's Corporate Investigation Unit (CIU) initiated an investigation based on an alleged intelligence report regarding the padding of the Credit Meter Readings (CMR) of the slot machines at PAGCOR-Hyatt Manila. During the investigation, the CIU discovered a scheme wherein the CMR readings were manipulated by either adding a zero after the first digit or adding a digit before the first digit of the actual CMR. The petitioner was identified as a member of the syndicate responsible for the CMR padding.

On May 4, 2007, the CIU served the petitioner with a Memorandum of Charges accusing him of dishonesty, serious misconduct, fraud, and violation of office rules and regulations. Additionally, CF Hyatt Manila, another entity within PAGCOR, issued another Memorandum of Charges against the petitioner specifically alleging dishonesty in padding of slot machine jackpot receipts. The petitioner denied his involvement in both cases and requested a formal investigation.

Subsequently, on August 4, 2007, the petitioner was dismissed from his position. In response, he filed a complaint against PAGCOR and its Chairman for illegal dismissal. However, the Civil Service Commission (CSC) denied the petitioner's appeal, and the Court of Appeals dismissed his petition for lack of merit.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred when it affirmed the dismissal of the petitioner based on technicality without considering the allegations of summary and arbitrary dismissal based on fabricated and unfounded accusations.

  2. Whether or not the Civil Service Commission (CSC) erred in ruling that there was no valid letter/motion for reconsideration submitted to reconsider petitioner's dismissal from the service.

  3. Whether or not the CSC erred in giving more weight to PAGCOR's denial of having received petitioner's letter of reconsideration.

  4. Whether or not the CSC erred in not acting on the Ex-Parte Motion to Issue Subpoena Duces Tecum.

  5. Whether or not the CSC erred in ruling that petitioner's failure to send his letter of reconsideration through mail or by personal service, as set forth in the Rules of Court, forfeited his right to appeal.

  6. Whether or not the CSC erred in favoring PAGCOR's dismissal of petitioner from employment based on hearsay, imaginary, and non-existent evidence.

RULING:

  1. The Court of Appeals did not err when it affirmed the dismissal of the petitioner. The letter/reconsideration dated August 13, 2007, was not filed in the manner prescribed (by mail or personal delivery) under the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service; thus, the CA properly affirmed the CSC's finding that the appeal was filed beyond the reglementary period.

  2. The Civil Service Commission did not err in ruling that there was no valid letter/motion for reconsideration because the method of filing used by the petitioner (facsimile) was not sanctioned by the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.

  3. The CSC did not err in giving more weight to PAGCOR's denial of having received the petitioner's letter of reconsideration, supported by certifications from PAGCOR employees.

  4. The issue regarding the Ex-Parte Motion to Issue Subpoena Duces Tecum was not directly addressed by the Supreme Court.

  5. The CSC did not err in ruling that a failure to send the letter of reconsideration through mail or by personal delivery, as set forth in the Rules of Court, forfeited the petitioner’s right to appeal.

  6. The issue of dismissal based on hearsay, imaginary, and non-existent evidence was not directly resolved as the primary focus was on procedural compliance regarding the appeal’s timeliness.

PRINCIPLES:

  1. Finality of Administrative Decisions: A decision rendered by an administrative agency becomes final and executory if no motion for reconsideration or appeal is filed in the manner and within the period prescribed by law.

  2. Jurisdictional Requirements for Appeal: The perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law is mandatory and jurisdictional.

  3. Modes of Filing Pleadings in Administrative Cases: Pleadings in administrative cases may only be filed by mail or personal delivery; facsimile transmissions are not acceptable.

  4. Electronic Commerce Act of 2000: Facsimile transmissions are not considered electronic evidence under the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000.

  5. Burden of Proof in Filing Requirements: It is the responsibility of the filing party to ensure that pleadings are filed in accordance with procedural rules. Failure to do so results in forfeiture of the right to appeal.

WHEREFORE , the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated April 22, 2010, and the Resolution dated July 30, 2010, of the Court of Appeals are hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.