TORRES vs. PAGCOR

                 

                        GR 193531, December 14, 2011

   

Facts: 

    Petitioner was a Slot Machine Operations Supervisor of respondent PAGCOR. On the basis of an alleged Operations Supervisor of respondent PAGCOR. On the basis of an alleged intelligence report of padding of the CMR of the slot machines at PAGCOR – Hyatt Manila, respondent PAGCOR’s CIU discovered the scheme of CMR padding which was committed by adding zero after the 1st digit of the actual CMR of a slot machine or adding a digit before the 1st digit of the actual CMR. CIU identified petitioner as one of the members responsible for such CMR padding. Petitioner was dismissed from the service.

Petitioner filed with the CSC a complaint for illegal dismissal and nonpayment of back wages and other benefits against PAGCOR; alleging among others that he tried to persuade respondent PAGCOR to review and reverse its decision in a letter of reconsideration addressed to the Chairman, the members of the Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board.

   CSC denied the appeal; it did not give credit to petitioner’s claim that he sent a facsimile transmission of his letter reconsideration within the period prescribed. It found out that one of the telephone numbers where petitioner allegedly sent his letter reconsideration did not belong to PAGCOR’s office of the Board of Directors; and that petitioner should have mentioned about the alleged facsimile transmission at the first instance where he filed his complaint.

On appeal, CA dismissed the petition for it found insufficient to merit consideration petitioner’s claim that he had sent through a facsimile transmission a letter reconsideration addressed to PAGCOR chair, members of the Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board, and assuming that a letter was indeed sent, such facsimile transmission is inadmissible as electronic evidence under the E-Commerce Act of 2000; and that the telephone number where petitioner claimed stop be the recipient of the faxed document sent was not that of the PAGCOR’s office of the Board of Directors.

Issue: 

   Whether or not the CSC erred in ruling that there was no valid letter reconsideration submitted.

Held:

    The mode used by the petitioner in filing his reconsideration is not sanctioned by the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service. As stated earlier, the motion for reconsideration may be filed only in two ways, either by mail or personal delivery.

” 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 them party and his counsel. It may, in fact, be a sham pleading.xxx” (Garvida vs Sales, Jr.)

“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.” (MCC Industries Sales Corporation vs Ssangyong Corporation).

Petition denied.