maglalang v pagcor

7/25/2019 Maglalang v PAGCOR

1/7

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 190566 December 11, 2013

MARK JEROME S. MAGAANG,Petitioner,

vs.

P!""PP"NE AMUSEMENT AND GAM"NG CORPORAT"ON #PAGCOR$, %& re're&e()e* b+ )&

(c-mbe() C%rm%( E/RA"M GENU"NO,Respondent.

D ! I S I O N

"ARAMA, JR., J.:

"efore this !ourt is a petition#for revie$ on certiorari under Rule %& of the #''( Rules of !ivil

Procedure, as a)ended, see*in+ the reversal of the Resolutiondated Septe)ber -, ' issued

b/ the !ourt of 0ppeals 1!02 in !033.4.R. SP No. ##%5, $hich outri+htl/ dis)issed the petition for

certiorari filed b/ herein petitioner Mar* 6ero)e S. Ma+lalan+ 1petitioner2. 0lso assailed is the

appellate court7s Resolution-dated Nove)ber 8, ' $hich denied petitioner7s )otion for

reconsideration.

The facts follo$.

Petitioner $as a teller at the !asino Filipino, 0n+eles !it/ "ranch, 0n+eles !it/, $hich $as operated

b/ respondent Philippine 0)use)ent and 4a)in+ !orporation 1P04!OR2, a +overn)ent9o$ned orcontrolled corporation e:istin+ b/ virtue of Presidential Decree 1P.D.2 No. #58'. %

Petitioner alle+ed that in the afternoon of Dece)ber #-, 5, $hile he $as perfor)in+ his functions

as teller, a lad/ custo)er identified later as one !ecilia Na*asato&1!ecilia2 approached hi) in his

booth and handed to hi) an undeter)ined a)ount of cash consistin+ of )i:ed P#,. and

P&. bills. There $ere %& P#,. and ten P&. bills for the total a)ount of P&,..

Follo$in+ casino procedure, petitioner laid the bills on the spreadin+ board. ;o$ever, he erroneousl/

spread the bills into onl/ four clusters instead of five clusters $orth P#,. per cluster. ;e then

placed )ar*ers for P#,. each cluster of cash and declared the total a)ount of P%,. to

!ecilia. Perple:ed, !ecilia as*ed petitioner $h/ the latter onl/ dished out P%,.. She then

pointed to the first cluster of bills and re


2/7

of the) $ere invited to the casino>s Internal Securit/ Office in order to air their respective sides.

Thereafter, petitioner $as res factual findin+s. In a letter9repl/#dated 6une , ',

one 0tt/. !arlos R. "autista, 6r. $ho did not indicate his authorit/ therein to represent P04!OR,

denied the said )otion. Petitioner received said letter9repl/ on 6une #(, '.

Subse


3/7

Reconsideration#5$hich the !0 denied in the assailed Resolution#'dated Nove)ber 8, '. In

den/in+ the said )otion, the !0 relied on this !ourt>s rulin+ in Dut/ Free Philippines v. MoAicacitin+

Philippine 0)use)ent and 4a)in+ !orp. v. !0,#$here this !ourt held as follo$sC

It is no$ settled that, confor)abl/ to 0rticle IB9", Section 1#2, of the #'5( !onstitutionE

+overn)ent9o$ned or controlled corporations shall be considered part of the !ivil Service onl/ ifthe/ have ori+inal charters, as distin+uished fro) those created under +eneral la$.

P04!OR belon+s to the !ivil Service because it $as created directl/ b/ PD #58' on 6ul/ ##, #'5-.

!onse


4/7

authorit/, petitioner invo*es our rulin+ in 4eron+a v. ;on. Varela-$hich cited Section %(,%!hapter #,

Subtitle 0, Title I, "oo* V of :ecutive Order 1.O.2 No. ' other$ise *no$n as The 0d)inistrative

!ode of #'5(. Said Section %( provides that the !S! )a/ entertain appeals onl/, a)on+ others,

fro) a penalt/ of suspension of )ore than - da/s. Petitioner asserts that his case, involvin+ a -9

da/ suspension penalt/, is not appealable to the !S!. Thus, he sub)its that his case $as properl/

brou+ht before the !0 via a petition for certiorari.&

On the other hand, P04!OR alle+es that petitioner intentionall/ o)itted relevant )atters in his

state)ent of facts. P04!OR essentiall/ clai)s that petitioner refused to apolo+i=e to !eciliaH that he

treated !ecilia>s co)plaint $ith arro+anceH and that before ta*in+ the afore)entioned #9)inute

brea*, petitioner sla))ed the cash to the counter $indo$ in +ivin+ it bac* to the custo)er.

P04!OR ar+ues that the instant petition raises s rulin+ $as in accordance $ith la$

and Aurisprudence. Moreover, P04!OR counters that petitioner>s re)ed/ of appeal is li)ited as

Section -( of the Revised nifor) Rules on 0d)inistrative !ases in the !ivil Service provides that a

decision rendered b/ heads of a+encies $hereb/ a penalt/ of suspension for not )ore than - da/s

is i)posed shall be final and e:ecutor/. P04!OR opines that such intent of li)itin+ appeals oversuch )inor offenses is elucidated in the !oncurrin+ Opinion of for)er !hief 6ustice Re/nato S. Puno

in !S! v. Daco/co/8and based on the basic pre)ise that appeal is )erel/ a statutor/ privile+e.

@astl/, P04!OR sub)its that the -9da/ suspension )eted on petitioner is Austified under its o$n

!ode of Discipline.(Prescindin+ fro) the fore+oin+, the sole


5/7

1#2 $hen there is a violation of due processH 12 $hen the issue involved is purel/ a le+al salar/. In

case the decision rendered b/ a bureau or office head is appealable to the !o))ission, the sa)e

)a/ be initiall/ appealed to the depart)ent and finall/ to the !o))ission and pendin+ appeal, the

sa)e shall be e:ecutor/ e:cept $hen the penalt/ is re)oval, in $hich case the sa)e shall be

e:ecutor/ onl/ after confir)ation b/ the depart)ent head. 1)phasis supplied.2

Si)ilar provisions are reiterated in the afore


6/7

thirt/ 1-2 da/s or fine in an a)ount not e:ceedin+ thirt/ 1-2 da/s salar/. "ut there is a clear polic/

reason for declarin+ these decisions final. These decisions involve )inor offenses. The/ are

nu)erous for the/ are the usual offenses co))itted b/ +overn)ent officials and e)plo/ees. To

allo$ their )ultiple level appeal $ill doubtless overburden the


7/7

Finall/, as a rule, a petition for certiorari under Rule 8& is valid onl/ $hen the

maglalang v pagcor

Documents