7/17/2019 Torres

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/torres-568d4ae4aa1de 1/2

ELLERY MARCH G. TORRES,Petitioner,vs.PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT and GAMINGCORPORATION, represented b ATTY.CARLOS R. !AUTISTA, "R.,Respondent.

#a$ts%

 The herein petitioner, Ellery March G.Torres,was a slot machine machine operatorsupervisor before the herein public respondentcompany, PAGCO.

!ithin the period "ovember #$%% to March#$$&, there was a complaint 'led before theo(ce of the ) department of the respondentfor the involvement of Torres in the alle*epaddin* of the credit meter readin* of the slotmachines.

 The investi*ation conducted a(rmativelyproved that Torres was involved with the said

crime.

 The administrative tribunal ad+ud*e for thedismissal of Torres. Torres 'led a motion forreconsideration for the said +ud*ment throu*hfacsimile transmission.

 The Administrative tribunal denied suchmotion, a(rmed by the CC and furthera(rmed by the appellate court.

Iss&e%  whether or not the transmission of themotion for reconsideration throu*h facsimileshould be re*arded as e-uivalent of 'lin* as

envision of the framers of the law tain* intoconsideration the advancement of technolo*y/

)eld0 "o, the upreme Court mentioned thefollowin*0

ections 1&, 12, 13, and 41 of the evised5niform ules on Administrative Cases in theCivil ervice, which are applicable to this case,respectively provide, to wit0

ection 1&. 6inality of 7ecisions 8 A decisionrendered by heads of a*encies whereby apenalty of suspension for not more than thirtydays or a 'ne in an amount not e9ceedin*

thirty :1$; days< salary is imposed, shall be'nal and e9ecutory. )owever, if the penaltyimposed is suspension e9ceedin* thirty days or'ne in an amount e9ceedin* thirty days= salary,the same shall be 'nal and e9ecutory after thelapse of the re*lementary period for 'lin* amotion for reconsideration or an appeal and nosuch pleadin* has been 'led.

ection 12. 6ilin* of motion for reconsideration.8 The party adversely a>ected by the decisionmay 'le a motion for reconsideration with thedisciplinin* authority who rendered the samewithin 'fteen days from receipt thereof.

ection 13. !hen deemed 'led. 8 A motion forreconsideration sent by mail shall be deemed'led on the date shown by the postmar on theenvelope which shall be attached to therecords of the case and in case of personaldelivery, the date stamped thereon by theproper o(ce.

ection 41. 6ilin* of Appeals. 8 7ecisions of heads of departments, a*encies, provinces,cities, municipalities and otherinstrumentalities imposin* a penalty e9ceedin*thirty :1$; days suspension or 'ne in anamount e9ceedin* thirty :1$; days= salary,

maybe appealed to the Commission Proper

within a period of 'fteen :?@; days from receiptthereof.

Clearly, a motion for reconsideration mayeither be 'led by mail or personal delivery.!hen a motion for reconsideration was sent bymail, the same shall be deemed 'led on the

date shown by the postmar on the envelopewhich shall be attached to the records of thecase.On the other hand, in case of personal delivery,the motion is deemed 'led on the datestamped thereon by the proper o(ce.

And the movant has ?@ days from receipt of the decision within which to 'le a motion forreconsideration or an appeal there from.

n Garvida v. ales, Br., we found inadmissible inevidence the 'lin* of pleadin*s throu*h fa9machines and ruled that0

A facsimile or fa9 transmission is a processinvolvin* the transmission and reproduction of printed and *raphic matter by scannin* anori*inal copy, one elemental area at a time,and representin* the shade or tone of eacharea by a speci'ed amount of electric current. The current is transmitted as a si*nal overre*ular telephone lines or via microwave relayand is used by the receiver to reproduce anima*e of the elemental area in the properposition and the correct shade. The receiver ise-uipped with a stylus or other device thatproduces a printed record on paper referred toas a facsimile.

9 9 9 A facsimile is not a *enuine and authenticpleadin*. t is, at best, an e9act copypreservin* all the mars of an ori*inal. !ithoutthe ori*inal, there is no way of determinin* onits face whether the facsimile pleadin* is*enuine and authentic and was ori*inallysi*ned by the party and his counsel. t may, infact, be a sham pleadin*.

 9 9 9

Moreover, a facsimile transmission is notconsidered as electronic evidence under theElectronic Commerce Act. n MCC ndustrial

ales Corporation v. san*yon* Corporation,!e determined the -uestion of whether theori*inal facsimile transmissions are electronicdata messa*es or electronic documentswithin the conte9t of the Electronic CommerceAct, and we said0

!e, therefore, conclude that the termselectronic data messa*e and electronicdocument, as de'ned under the ElectronicCommerce Act of #$$$, do not include afacsimile transmission. Accordin*ly, a facsimiletransmission cannot be considered aselectronic evidence.

t is not the functional e-uivalent of an ori*inalunder the Dest Evidence ule and is notadmissible as electronic evidence.

ndeed the transmission made by the petitionerthrou*h facsimile was not within the intentionof the framers of the law. The law e9presslyprovide that submission of motion be madethrou*h mail personally or throu*h post o(ceand not throu*h fa9.

!e have to be mindful that appeal is not aconstitutional ri*ht, but rather it is a statutoryri*ht, unless the law provides it is within the

discretion f the court to allow. The hi*h court denied the petition.

7/17/2019 Torres

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/torres-568d4ae4aa1de 2/2