case digests part 2

[G.R. No. 193531, December 06, 2011] 

ELLERY MARCH G. TORRES, PETITIONER, VS. PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ATTY. CARLOS R. BAUTISTA, JR., RESPONDENT

Facts: 

Petitioner is a slot machine operations supervisor of PACGOR. Respondent's Corporate Investigation Unit conducted an investigation and discovered the scheme of CMR padding which was committed by adding zero after the first digit of the actual CMR of a slot machine or adding a digit before the first digit of the actual CMR. On May 4, 2007, the CIU served petitioner with a Memorandum of Charges. Petitioner was then required to explain in writing within seventy-two (72) hours from receipt thereof why he should not be sanctioned or dismissed. Petitioner was placed under preventive suspension effective immediately until further orders. 

Petitioner received a copy of the letter/notice of dismissal on August 4, 2007; thus, the motion for reconsideration should have been submitted either by mail or by personal delivery on or before August 19, 2007.  However, records do not show that petitioner had filed his motion for reconsideration.  In fact, the CSC found that the non-receipt of petitioner's letter reconsideration was duly supported by certifications issued by PAGCOR employees.

Petitioner received a copy of the letter/notice of dismissal on August 4, 2007; thus, the motion for reconsideration should have been submitted either by mail or by personal delivery on or before August 19, 2007.  However, records do not show that petitioner had filed his motion for reconsideration.  In fact, the CSC found that the non-receipt of petitioner's letter reconsideration was duly supported by certifications issued by PAGCOR employees.

Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against respondents. The complaint alleged among others: (1) that he denied all the charges against him; (2) that he did ask for a formal investigation of the accusations against him and for PAGCOR to produce evidence and proofs to substantiate the charges, but respondent PAGCOR did not call for any formal administrative hearing; (3) that he tried to persuade respondent PAGCOR to review and reverse its decision in a letter of reconsideration dated August 13,  2007 addressed to the Chairman, the members of the Board of Directors and the Merit Systems Protection Board; and (4) that no resolution was issued on his letter reconsideration, thus, the filing of the complaint. Petitioner claimed that as a result of  his unlawful, unjustified and illegal termination/dismissal, he was compelled to hire the services of a counsel in order to protect his rights.

Issue: 

Whether or not sending the Motion for Reconsideration be considered duly filed if sent thru facsimile. 

Held: 

SC held in the negative. Citing different provisions from the Rules of Court which clearly provide that it can only be sent thru two ways, which is personal delivery or delivery by mail. 

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 therefrom.

Even assuming arguendo that petitioner indeed submitted a letter reconsideration which he claims was sent through a facsimile transmission,  such letter reconsideration  did not toll the period to appeal. The mode used by petitioner in filing his reconsideration is not sanctioned by the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service. As we stated earlier, the motion for reconsideration may be filed only in two ways, either by mail or personal delivery.

 A.M. No. MTJ-06-1659

ANNA JANE D. LIHAYLIHAY,   petitioner

vs 

JUDGE ALEJANDRO T. CANDA, respondent

Facts: 

The Sheriff IV of RTC of Branch 28, Liloy, Zamboanga del Norte retired thus his position became vacant and respondent become interested to said post for a certain Emmanuel Tenafrancia. To the dismay of Judge Canda, a certain Jesus V. Alimpolo (Alimpolo) applied for the vacated position.  Judge Canda strongly opposed Alimpolo’s application.

         Judge Canda was of the impression that Lihaylihay was assisting Alimpolo in his application for the position of Sheriff IV.  On 5 January 2006, Judge Canda sent a text message to Lihaylihay stating, “Maayo tingali modistansya ka anang mga tawhana kay basin masabit ka, pakiusap lang ni.”  Taking the text message as a threat, Lihaylihay reported it to the police and requested that a blotter entry be made.  On 6 January 2006, Judge Canda sent another text message stating, “For maliciously causing it to appear as threatening in the police blotter of what is otherwise a very harmless text message of appeal I consider the same as declaration of war, don’t worry you will have your owned [sic] fair share of trouble in due time.” 

Thus respondent sent a letter alleging that petitioner is no longer fit to her position since she is bias and cant maintain neutrality by supporting Alimpolo. He even caused said letters to be published in the local news paper. In her reply, petitioner denied all allegations by respondent and filed a complaint against respondent judge. 

Issue: 

Whether or not the respondent judge was liable for gross misconduct. 

Held: 

The SC held in the affirmative. 

Judge Canda harassed and publicly humiliated Lihaylihay: (1) he asked her to stay away from Alimpolo; (2) when she reported the matter to the police, he took it as a “declaration of war” and warned her that she will have her “fair share of trouble in due time”; (3) indeed, three days after sending the threatening text message, he filed a complaint with Judge Tomarong accusing her of several things, asking that she be disciplined and removed from the service, and describing her as a “GRO,” “undignified,”     a “whore,” “disgusting,” “repulsive,” and “pakialamera”; (4) two days after filing the first complaint, he filed another complaint accusing her of violating office rules and describing her as “offensive,” “demeaning,” “inappropriate,” a “GRO,” “undignified,” “repulsive,” and a “whore”;       (5) still unsatisfied, he had his second complaint published in the newspaper; and (6) when she published her comment in the newspaper, he filed a criminal case for libel against her.   

         Section 1, Canon 2 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary states that “Judges shall ensure that not only is their conduct above reproach, but that it is perceived to be so in the view of a reasonable observer.”  Section 2, Canon 2 of the Code states that “The behavior and conduct of judges must reaffirm the people’s faith in the integrity of the judiciary.”  Section 2, Canon 4 of the Code states that “As a subject of constant public scrutiny, judges must accept personal restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen and should do so freely and willingly.  In particular,judges shall conduct themselves in a way that is consistent with the dignity of the judicial office.”  Section 6, Canon 4 of the Code states that “Judges, like any other citizen, are entitled to freedom of expression x x x, but in exercising such [right], they shall always conduct themselves in such a manner as to preserve the dignity of the judicial office.”  Section 6, Canon 6 of the Code states that “Judges shall x x x be x x x dignified and courteous.”  Judge Canda violated these provisions.