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

Petitioner Ellery March G. Torres was a Slot Machine Operations Supervisor (SMOS) of respondent Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR). Based on an intelligence report and subsequent investigation by PAGCOR’s Corporate Investigation Unit (CIU) regarding the padding of Credit Meter Readings (CMR) of slot machines at Casino Filipino-Hyatt Manila, petitioner was identified as a member of a syndicate responsible for the fraudulent scheme. The scheme involved altering the actual CMR amounts on receipts, causing substantial losses to PAGCOR.
On May 4, 2007, petitioner was served with a Memorandum of Charges for dishonesty, serious misconduct, fraud, and violation of office rules and regulations, which are grave offenses punishable by dismissal. He was placed under preventive suspension and required to submit a written explanation. On May 7, 2007, petitioner submitted a letter denying the charges and requesting a formal investigation.
On August 4, 2007, petitioner received a letter dated August 2, 2007, from PAGCOR’s Human Resource and Development Department, informing him that the Board of Directors had approved his dismissal from the service effective July 31, 2007, due to dishonesty, gross misconduct, serious violations of office rules, conduct prejudicial to the company’s best interests, and loss of trust and confidence.
On September 14, 2007, petitioner filed a complaint with the Civil Service Commission (CSC) against PAGCOR for illegal dismissal, claiming he was denied a formal administrative hearing and that his motion for reconsideration (allegedly sent via facsimile on August 13, 2007) was not acted upon. PAGCOR, in its Comment, argued that petitioner failed to perfect an appeal within the period prescribed by the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.
On June 23, 2008, the CSC issued a resolution denying petitioner’s appeal, affirming his dismissal. The CSC found that petitioner’s appeal had prescribed, giving more credence to PAGCOR’s denial of receiving his motion for reconsideration, supported by employee certifications, and noting that one of the fax numbers used did not belong to PAGCOR’s Office of the Board of Directors. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the CSC on July 28, 2009.
Petitioner elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA) via a petition for review. On April 22, 2010, the CA dismissed the petition, finding that petitioner failed to provide clear and convincing evidence of having filed a motion for reconsideration. The CA noted that the alleged facsimile transmission was inadmissible as electronic evidence under the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000 and that the telephone number used was not PAGCOR’s. The CA concluded that PAGCOR’s dismissal decision had attained finality due to petitioner’s failure to file a motion for reconsideration within the reglementary period. The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on July 30, 2010.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the dismissal of petitioner based on the technical ground of prescription (failure to file a timely motion for reconsideration) without substantively addressing the allegations of summary and arbitrary dismissal.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The Court held that the findings of fact by the CSC, affirmed by the CA, are conclusive and binding when supported by substantial evidence. The core issue was the timeliness of petitioner’s appeal. The Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service require that a decision rendered by a department or agency head, such as PAGCOR’s dismissal letter dated August 2, 2007, may be appealed to the CSC within fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof. A motion for reconsideration must be filed with the disciplining office (PAGCOR) within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the decision to interrupt the running of the period for appeal.
The Court found that petitioner failed to prove he filed a motion for reconsideration with PAGCOR within the reglementary period. His claim of sending a fax on August 13, 2007, was insufficient and uncorroborated. PAGCOR presented certifications from its employees denying receipt. The alleged fax number was verified not to belong to PAGCOR’s Office of the Board of Directors. Furthermore, the Court noted that petitioner did not mention the fax transmission in his initial CSC complaint but only raised it after PAGCOR asserted prescription.
Consequently, PAGCOR’s dismissal decision became final and executory after the lapse of the 15-day period without a motion for reconsideration or appeal. The Court emphasized that procedural rules are not mere technicalities but essential to the orderly administration of justice. The right to appeal is statutory, and failure to comply with the reglementary period renders the decision final and unappealable. The Court declined to relax the rules, as petitioner did not show a compelling reason or that his case was meritorious on substantive grounds. Thus, the CA correctly dismissed the petition based on prescription, and there was no need to delve into the substantive merits of the dismissal.