Lots of antique slot machines look great on the outside, but need serious attention on the inside. Our most popular service is our full internal tune-up and repair.If your machine has stopped working, doesn't payout anymore or is running very slow or sluggish, then it needs cleaned & tuned properly. Pagcor Certificate Program in Slot Machine Technician Batch B 2012.
Facts:Pagcor Slot Machine Technician Job
Petitionerwas a Slot Machine Operations Supervisor (SMOS) of respondent Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation(PAGCOR). On the basis of an allegedintelligence report of padding of the Credit Meter Readings (CMR) of the slotmachines at PAGCOR-Hyatt Manila, then Casino Filipino-Hyatt (CF Hyatt), whichinvolved the slot machine and internal security personnel of respondent PAGCOR,and in connivance with slot machinecustomers, respondent PAGCOR's Corporate Investigation Unit (CIU) allegedlyconducted an investigation to verify the veracity of such report. The CIU discovered the scheme of CMR padding which was committed byadding zero after the first digit of the actual CMR of a slot machine or addinga digit before the first digit of the actual CMR, e.g., a slot machine with anactual CMR of PhP5,000.00 will be issued a CMR receipt with the amount of eitherPhP50,000.00 or PhP35,000.00. Based onthe CIU's investigation of all the CMR receipts and slot machine jackpot slipsissued by CF Hyatt for the months of February and March 2007, the CIUidentified the members of the syndicate who were responsible for such CMRpadding, which included herein petitioner.
CIUserved petitioner with a Memorandum of Charges for dishonesty, seriousmisconduct, fraud and violation of office rules and regulations which wereconsidered grave offenses where the penalty imposable is dismissal.
Petitioner then wrote Manager Bangsil a letterexplanation/refutation of the charges against him. He denied any involvement orparticipation in any fraudulent manipulation of the CMR or padding of the slotmachine receipts, and he asked for a formal investigation of the accusationsagainst him. On August 4, 2007, petitioner received a letter dated August 2, 2007from Atty. Lizette F. Mortel, Managing Head of PAGCOR's Human Resource andDevelopment Department, dismissing him from the service.
OnSeptember 14, 2007, petitioner filed with the CSC a Complaint against PAGCOR and its ChairmanEfraim Genuino for illegal dismissal, non-payment of backwages and otherbenefits. Thereafter, the CSC, treating petitioner'scomplaint as an appeal from the PAGCOR's decision dismissing petitioner fromthe service, issued Resolution No. 081204 denying petitioner's appeal, citingthat:
… the CSC found that theissue for resolution was whether petitioner's appeal had already prescribedwhich the former answered in the positive. The CSC did not give credit topetitioner's claim that he sent a facsimile transmission of his letterreconsideration within the period prescribed by the Uniform Rules onAdministrative Cases in the Civil Service. It found PAGCOR's denial of having received petitioner's letter morecredible as it was supported by certifications issued by its employees. Itfound that a verification of one of the telephone numbers where petitionerallegedly sent his letter reconsideration disclosed that such number did notbelong to the PAGCOR's Office of the Board of Directors; and that petitionershould have mentioned about the alleged facsimile transmission at the firstinstance when he filed his complaint and not only when respondent PAGCOR raisedthe issue of prescription in its Comment.”
Hence, this petition.
Issue:
Whether the sending of the letter ofreconsideration by means of fax machine can be considered a valid and legalmode of filing a letter of reconsideration?
Held:
Petitionercontends that he filed his letter reconsideration of his dismissal on August13, 2007, which was within the 15-day period for filing the same; and that hedid so by means of a facsimile transmission sent to the PAGCOR's Office of theBoard of Directors. He claims that the sending of documents thru electronicdata message, which includes facsimile, is sanctioned under Republic Act No.8792, the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000. Petitioner further contends thatsince his letter reconsideration was not acted upon by PAGCOR, he then filedhis complaint before the CSC.
TheCourt citing different provisions of the Revised Uniform Rules onAdministrative Cases in the Civil Service particularly highlighted that amotion for reconsideration may either be filed by mail or personaldelivery. When a motion forreconsideration was sent by mail, the same shall be deemed filed on the dateshown by the postmark on the envelope which shall be attached to the records ofthe case. On the other hand, in case of personal delivery, the motion is deemedfiled on the date stamped thereon by the proper office. And the movant has 15 days from receipt ofthe decision within which to file a motion for reconsideration or an appealtherefrom.
Petitioner received a copy of the letter/noticeof dismissal on August 4, 2007; thus, the motion for reconsideration shouldhave been submitted either by mail or by personal delivery on or before August19, 2007.However, records do not showthat petitioner had filed his motion for reconsideration.In fact, the CSC found that the non-receiptof petitioner's letter reconsideration was duly supported by certificationsissued by PAGCOR employees.
Even assuming arguendo that petitioner indeedsubmitted a letter reconsideration which he claims was sent through a facsimiletransmission, such letter reconsideration did not toll the period to appeal. The mode used by petitioner in filinghis reconsideration is not sanctioned by the Uniform Rules on AdministrativeCases in the Civil Service. As we stated earlier, the motion forreconsideration may be filed only in two ways, either by mail or personaldelivery.
Furthermore, the Court in Garvida v. Sales,Jr., found inadmissible in evidence the filing of pleadings through faxmachines and ruled that:
Afacsimile or fax transmission is a process involving the transmission andreproduction of printed and graphic matter by scanning an original copy, oneelemental area at a time, and representing the shade or tone of each area by aspecified amount of electric current. The current is transmitted as a signalover regular telephone lines or via microwave relay and is used by the receiverto reproduce an image of the elemental area in the proper position and thecorrect shade. The receiver is equipped with a stylus or other device thatproduces a printed record on paper referred to as a facsimile.
x x x A facsimile is not a genuine and authenticpleading. It is, at best, an exact copy preserving all the marks of anoriginal. Without the original, there is no way of determining on its facewhether the facsimile pleading is genuine and authentic and was originallysigned 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 theElectronic Commerce Act. In MCCIndustrial Sales Corporation v. Ssangyong Corporation, the Court determined thequestion of whether the original facsimile transmissions are 'electronicdata messages' or 'electronic documents' within the context ofthe Electronic Commerce Act, and said:
Pagcor Slot Machine Technician Salary
“We, therefore, conclude that the terms'electronic data message' and 'electronic document,' asdefined under the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000, do not include afacsimile transmission. Accordingly, a facsimile transmission cannot be consideredas electronic evidence. It is not thefunctional equivalent of an original under the Best Evidence Rule and is notadmissible as electronic evidence.”
Pagcor Slot Machine Technician Operator
Full text of the case available at: http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/december2011/193531.htm