Torres v. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corp.

G.R. No. 193531

[December 6, 2011]
677 PHIL 672-684

Facts:

 Torres was a slot machine operations supervisor for PAGCOR.

 An investigation was made concerning the tampering of slot machines
o (padding of credit meter reading)
 The investigation concluded that Torres was involved, along with several other people, in the
tampering of the slot machines which led to significant losses for PAGCOR.
 Torres was asked to submit an explanation as to why he did not warrant sanction or dismissal.
 He sent a facsimile transmission of his letter to PAGCOR’s Office of Board of Directors
 Torres was eventually dismissed.
 He went before the CSC to file a complaint against PAGCOR for illegal dismissal
 PAGCOR countered by saying that Torres failed to perfect an appeal within the period and
manner provided by law. PAGCOR denied having received Torres’ appeal.
 The CSC ruled in favor of PAGCOR by giving credence to their denial of receipt of the letter
o Employees of PAGCOR gave affidavits of not receiving the letter
 The case was raised to the CA.
 The CA did not believe that Torres sent his letter reconsideration, and ruled that even if he did
send it thru fax, the letter would be inadmissible as electronic evidence.

Issue:

 Is the sending of documents thru fax allowed for motion for reconsiderations?

Ruling:

 No.
o The Supreme Court held that a motion for reconsideration may either be filed by mail or
personal delivery.
o Even assuming that Torres submitted a letter reconsideration thru fax, it is still not a
mode allowed by law. Motions for reconsideration may only be filed in two ways:
 Mail
 Personal Delivery

Rationale:

 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. (Garvida v. Sales, Jr.)
 The terms "electronic data message" and "electronic document," as defined under
the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000, do not include a facsimile transmission. (MCC v.
Ssangyong)