G.R. No. 193531 December 14, 2011
ELLERY MARCH G. TORRES,Petitioner,
vs.
PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT and GAMING CORPORATION, represented by ATTY. CARLOS R. BAUTISTA, JR.,Respondent.
Facts: the herein petitioner, Ellery March G.Torres, was a slot machine machine operator supervisor before the herein public respondent company, PAGCOR. Within the period November 2066 to March 2007, there was a complaint filed before the office of the HR department of the respondent for the involvement of Torres in the allege padding of the credit meter reading of the slot machines. The investigation conducted affirmatively proved that Torres was involved with the said crime. The administrative tribunal adjudge for the dismissal of Torres. Torres filed a motion for reconsideration for the said judgment through facsimile transmission. The Administrative tribunal denied such motion, affirmed by the CSC and further affirmed by the appellate court.
Issue: whether or not the transmission of the motion for reconsideration through facsimile should be regarded as equivalent of filing as envision of the framers of the law taking into consideration the advancement of technology?
Held: No, the Supreme Court mentioned the following:
Sections 37, 38, 39, and 43 of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, which are applicable to this case, respectively provide, to wit:
Section 37. Finality of Decisions - A decision rendered by heads of agencies whereby a penalty of suspension for not more than thirty days or a fine in an amount not exceeding thirty (30) days' salary is imposed, shall be final and executory. However, if the penalty imposed is suspension exceeding thirty days or fine in an amount exceeding thirty days’ salary, the same shall be final and executory after the lapse of the reglementary period for filing a motion for reconsideration or an appeal and no such pleading has been filed.
Section 38. Filing of motion for reconsideration. - The party adversely affected by the decision may file a motion for reconsideration with the disciplining authority who rendered the same within fifteen days from receipt thereof.
Section 39. When deemed filed. - A motion for reconsideration sent by mail shall be deemed filed on the date shown by the postmark on the envelope which shall be attached to the records of the case and in case of personal delivery, the date stamped thereon by the proper office.
Section 43. Filing of Appeals. - Decisions of heads of departments, agencies, provinces, cities, municipalities and other instrumentalities imposing a penalty exceeding thirty (30) days suspension or fine in an amount exceeding thirty (30) days’ salary, maybe appealed to the Commission Proper within a period of fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof.
Clearly, 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 there from.
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.
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 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, and we 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.
Indeed the transmission made by the petitioner through facsimile was not within the intention of the framers of the law. The law expressly provide that submission of motion be made through mail personally or through post office and not through fax. We have to be mindful that appeal is not a constitutional right, but rather it is a statutory right, unless the law provides it is within the discretion f the court to allow.
The high court denied the petition.
No comments:
Post a Comment