Torres v. Philippine Amusement & Gaming Corp.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Ellery March G. Torres was a Slot Machine Operations Supervisor (SMOS) at Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR)-Hyatt Manila. An intelligence report alleged padding of Credit Meter Readings (CMR) of slot machines, involving personnel and customers. PAGCOR's Corporate Investigation Unit (CIU) investigated and discovered a scheme where CMR amounts were fraudulently inflated. Petitioner was identified as a member of the syndicate. Procedural History: On May 4, 2007, petitioner received a Memorandum of Charges for dishonesty, serious misconduct, fraud, and violation of office rules and regulations, considered grave offenses. He was placed under preventive suspension. Petitioner submitted a letter of explanation/refutation on May 7, 2007, denying involvement and requesting a formal investigation. On August 2, 2007, PAGCOR's Human Resource and Development Department informed petitioner of his dismissal from the service, effective upon approval by the Board of Directors on July 31, 2007, for dishonesty, gross misconduct, serious violations of office rules, conduct prejudicial to the best interests of the company, and loss of trust and confidence due to his participation in the CMR padding scheme. The Petition: On September 14, 2007, petitioner filed a Complaint with the Civil Service Commission (CSC) against PAGCOR and its Chairman for illegal dismissal, non-payment of backwages, and other benefits, alleging denial of due process and lack of formal hearing. The CSC, treating the complaint as an appeal, denied it in Resolution No. 081204 (June 23, 2008), affirming the dismissal. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied in CSC Resolution No. 09-1105 (July 28, 2009). The Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed petitioner's petition for review in a Decision dated April 22, 2010, and denied his motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated July 30, 2010. Hence, the present petition.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Civil Service Commission's dismissal of the appeal for being filed beyond the reglementary period. Whether a facsimile transmission is a valid mode of filing a motion for reconsideration under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service. Whether facsimile transmissions are considered "electronic documents" under the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The Decision dated April 22, 2010 and the Resolution dated July 30, 2010 of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court ruled that petitioner's appeal to the Civil Service Commission was filed 41 days after he received the letter of dismissal, well beyond the 15-day reglementary period. Under Section 43 of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, decisions imposing dismissal must be appealed within 15 days from receipt. Since petitioner received the notice on August 4, 2007, he had until August 19, 2007, to file a valid motion for reconsideration or appeal. Because the alleged facsimile did not constitute a valid filing, it failed to toll the period for appeal. As a result, the dismissal attained finality and became unappealable, depriving the CSC of jurisdiction to hear the complaint. On Issue 2: The Court emphasized that the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service provide only two methods for filing a motion for reconsideration: mail or personal delivery. Section 39 specifies that filing by mail is deemed completed on the postmark date, while personal delivery is deemed completed on the date stamped by the receiving office. Citing Garvida v. Sales, Jr., the Court held that a facsimile is not a genuine and authentic pleading but merely an exact copy of the original. There is no way to determine on the face of a fax whether it was originally signed by the party or counsel. Thus, the mode used by the petitioner is not sanctioned by law and did not produce any legal effect. On Issue 3: The Court clarified that facsimile transmissions are not electronic evidence under Republic Act No. 8792, also known as the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000. Applying the ruling in MCC Industrial Sales Corporation v. Ssangyong Corporation, the Court held that the terms "electronic data message" and "electronic document" do not include facsimile transmissions. A facsimile is not the functional equivalent of an original under the Best Evidence Rule and is therefore inadmissible as electronic evidence. Because the faxed letter reconsideration did not meet the definition of an electronic document, it could not serve as a valid substitute for a physically filed motion.
Main Doctrine
The filing of a motion for reconsideration or appeal must strictly comply with the prescribed period and manner provided by law. Failure to do so renders the decision final and executory, and the appellate court loses jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Facsimile transmissions are not recognized modes for filing pleadings under the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, nor are they considered electronic evidence under the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000.