Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND

GAMING CORPORATION and
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
Petitioners,
- versus -
SANDEE S. ADORA and
WILLIAM B. DE VERA
Respondents.
G.R. No. __________________
CA-G.R. SP No. 132051
Petition for Review on Certiorari
under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court with Prayer for the
Issuance of a Temporary
Restraining Order and/or Writ of
Preliminary Injunction

PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI

PETITIONER, the PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING

CORPORATION (PAGCOR), unto this Honorable Court, most
respectfully state:

THE PARTIES

1. Petitioner, PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING

CORPORATION (hereinafter referred to as “Petitioner”) is a
Government-Owned and Controlled Corporation, created pursuant to
Presidential Decree No. 1869, as amended, with Corporate Office
Address at 6th Floor, New World Hotel Manila Bay, M.H. Del Pilar
St., Malate Manila, where it may be served with summons and other
court processes.

2. In its meeting held on January 31, 2018, the Board of

Directors of PAGCOR authorized the filing of this Petition. (A copy of
the Secretary’s certificate is hereto attached as ANNEX “A”)

3. Respondents, SANDEE S. ADORA and WILLIAM B. DE

VERA (hereinafter referred to as “Respondents”) are Filipinos of legal
age, and were PAGCOR employees until October 16, 2012 when
both were dismissed from service after they were found guilty of:
(a) Serious Dishonesty,
(b) Theft,
(c) Serious Misconduct, and
(d) Loss of Trust and confidence for Respondent Adora, while

1
 (1) Theft,
(2) Serious Misconduct,
(3) Loss of Trust and confidence, and
(4) Gross Neglect of Duty for Respondent De Vera
for conspiring and conniving to steal from Casino Slot Machines of
Mactan Satellite of the Casino Filipino- Cebu Branch. They may be
served with summons and other court processes through counsel, at
the address of No. 45 M.J. Cuenco Avenue, 6000 Cebu City.

NATURE OF PETITION

4. This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari with Prayer

for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of
Preliminary Injunction of the Honorable Court of Appeals Decision
promulgated on July 31, 2017 and Resolution, promulgated on
January 16, 2018 and received January 24, 2018, in CA-G.R. SP No.
132051 entitled “Sandee S. Adora and William B. De Vera v.
Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation and Civil
Service Commission” REVERSING the Decision rendered by the
Civil Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as “CSC”) which
affirmed the dismissal of the Respondents and DENYING the
subsequent Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration. Duplicate original
copies of the said Decision and Resolution are hereto attached as
ANNEXES “B” and “C”, respectively.

5. Review is sought of the challenged Decision and

Resolution, which Reversed and Set Aside the Civil Service
Commission Resolution No. 130415. Duplicate original copies of the
Resolution of the CSC Resolution are hereto attached as ANNEX
“D”.

6. The Honorable Court of Appeals’ reversal of the CSC

Resolution, which in effect, refuted the dismissal of the Respondents,
is contrary to prevailing and settled jurisprudence rendered by this
Honorable Supreme Court.

7. In denying the Petition, the Honorable Court of Appeals

committed a reversible error correctible by a Petition for Review on
Certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Procedure with Prayer
for issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of
Preliminary Injunction by this Honorable Supreme Court.
Hence, this instant Petition.
2
 TIMELINESS OF THE PETITION

8. On the 7th of August 2017, Petitioner received a copy of

the Honorable Court of Appeals’ Decision, promulgated July 31,
2017, in CA-G.R. SP No. 132051, to which Petitioner timely moved
for Reconsideration on August 18, 2017.

9. Petitioner received a copy of the Honorable Court of

Appeals’ Resolution, promulgated on January 16, 2018, denying its
Motion for Reconsideration which petitioner received January 24,
2018. Thus, Petitioner has fifteen (15) Days or until February 8, 2018
to file its Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules
of Procedure. Hence, this Petition is seasonably filed.

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND

ANTECEDENT PROCEEDINGS

10. This issue is rooted upon the imposition of the penalty of

Dismissal from Service of the Respondents after undergoing a
Formal Investigation under PAGCOR and the subsequent finding of
guilt for the charges against them. As brief statement of facts:

10.1 Adora was employed by PAGCOR as Slot Machine

Maintenance Assistant, with duties of reparation of defective
and non-functional slot machines. While De Vera was hired
as Internal Security staff, in charge of maintaining order in
the gaming area. Both were assigned to PAGCOR Satellite
Mactan Casino Filipino (CF) - Cebu.

10.2 The case originated from the monitoring of Branch

Surveillance Officer (ABSO) Salvatierra (Salvatierra) who
witnessed the dubious behavior of the Respondents and,
casino patron Gilbert Saberon.

10.3 While surveying the Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV)

camera positioned to cover the slot machine gaming area,
Salvatierra noticed suspicious action between the
Respondents and Saberon. Salvatierra informed his
superior, Benigno Supnet, of the incidents, as well as the
Chief Security Officer Audy V. Pobre.

10.4 Upon careful inspection of the CCTV footage, it was

evident that the Respondents together with Saberon were

3
 running a malicious scheme to steal Casino Tokens from the
slot machines to be converted to cash by the latter.

10.5 On the same day, Saberon was confronted by Casino

Security with the CCTV footage. Expressing guilt for his
actions, Saberon admitted that he was in conspiracy with the
Respondents to cheat the Casino of its Tokens. According to
Saberon, the scheme was for Adora to take casino tokens
from the slot machine hopper and place the said tokens
beside an adjacent slot machine which Saberon took in
order to be claimed as cash. This allowed Saberon to steal
more or less P2,000.00 worth of Tokens. De Vera, as
Internal Security, negligently failed to supervise Adora while
he was on duty at the Slot machines.

10.6 Saberon executed an extra-judicial confession taken by

an independent private lawyer and notary public disclosing
the said scheme. To wit:

“At first I lied that I just played fairly, however

thinking that I might be incriminated as the only
culprit of the illegal acts being not an employee of
Casino Philippines, plus the fact of CCTV coverage,
hence on the latter part of the investigation I
confessed the whole story to ISS Edilberto Usal that
I am in conspiracy with Mr. Adora and IS De Vera in
making fraud and machination with Casino
Philippines.”

“I was tempted and regretted the illegal act I did. I

hope that the management of Casino Philippine will
forgive me especially so, this is the first time I
committed such illegal acts and will not do it again”

(Extra-judicial confession of Saberon is hereto attached as ANNEX

“E”)

10.7 Acting upon the affidavit of Saberon, Lapu-Lapu

Police apprehended the respondents armed with the
appropriate documents to charge them with Qualified Theft.
Inquest proceedings were conducted by Associate
Prosecutor Aida L. Castillo. A criminal case is pending
against the same respondents entitled People of the
Philippines v. Sandee Adora and William De Vera (Criminal

4
 Case No. R-LLP-12-06886-CR) before Branch 15, Regional
Trial Court of Lapu-Lapu City.

11. In compliance with the Revised Rules on Administrative

Cases in the Civil Service (RRACS), PAGCOR conducted an initial
investigation on the matter to determine the proper administrative
case that may be charged against the Respondents.

11.1 A show cause memorandum was issued by CF-Cebu

General Manager Roque M. Cervantes to the Respondents,
directing them (1) to explain why no administrative case
should be filed against them and (2) file their Answer within
72 hours, otherwise it will be considered a waiver of their
right.

(Show cause memorandum is hereto attached as ANNEX “F”)

11.2 The Respondents, upon the advice of their counsel,

refused to receive the Show cause memorandum as well as
did not file their required answers.

11.3 On January 7, 2012, in compliance with Section18 Rule

4 of the RRACS, the Security Department of PAGCOR
issued an Investigation Report finding a prima facie case to
hold the Respondents liable. The report was forwarded to
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Cristino L. Naguiat.

11.4 On January 13, 2012, upon review of the Investigation

Report, the Chairman issued formal charges against the
Respondents for violation of Company personnel policies
and regulations. The Respondents were given 72 hours from
receipt to answer the charges against them and opportunity
to have a formal investigation regarding the matter where
they can present evidence for their answer.

(Copies of the Formal Charges are hereto attached as ANNEX “G”)

11.5 Respondents requested a formal investigation on the

charges against them. Adora, in his answer, simply denied
all the charges against them.

12. In January 31, 2012 and February 9, 2012, Adora and De

Vera received Notice of Preventive Suspension in compliance with
Rule 7 of the RRACS.

5
 13. Contrary to the claims of Respondents, the Branch Hearing
Panel (BHP) conducted various hearings wherein the petitioners were
able to ventilate their defense and adduce evidence in support
thereof. As a matter of fact, the Respondents admitted in their
Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals that due process was
afforded to them in every step. As stated in their Petition, to wit:

“4.9 While processing for their bail bond, Human

Resource Personnel of PAGCOR tried to serve some
document to Adora and De Vera inside the Hall of
Justice”

xxx

13.1 On January 17, 2012, PAGCOR personnel served the

Formal Charge to Adora in his residence at Talisay City,
Cebu. The charges were (1) Serious dishonesty, (2) theft, (3)
serious misconduct, and (4) Loss of trust and confidence in
connection with the December 30, 2011 incident with the
direction him to file his answer within 72 hour from receipt.

13.2 The following day, January 18, 2012, De Vera was

served with a formal charge informing him of the charges of
(1) Theft, (2) Serious Misconduct, (3) Loss of Trust and
confidence, and (4) Gross Neglect of Duty in connection with
the December 30, 2011 incident and directed him to file his
answer within 72 hours from receipt.

13.3 Petitioners also received a preventive suspension order

as required for employees under investigation. Furthermore,
Respondents filed their answers to which a Conference was
scheduled by General Manager Cervantes of Cebu Casino
Branch.

13.4 Both Respondents attended the Formal hearing of the

cases against them which was scheduled on May 24, 2012.
At the hearing, the Respondents requested to view the
whole CCTV footage to which the BHP acceded to their
request.

13.5 They also requested that Gilbert Saberon be allowed to

testify, which the BHP also granted. Additionally, the
Respondents demanded that they be allowed to ask
clarificatory questions, which the BHP also approved.

6
 13.6 After the investigation, they filed their position papers
and their final memorandum regarding the charges as
required by the BHP.

14. After an exhaustive investigation process, The BHP found

Adora guilty of the Serious Misconduct and De Vera with Serious
Misconduct and Gross Neglect of Duty, meting out the penalty of
Dismissal for both Respondents. The findings of the BHP are
embodied in the Formal Investigation Report and is hereto attached
as ANNEX “H”.

15. The Formal Investigation Report was elevated to the

PAGCOR Adjudication Committee, tasked by the Board of Directors
to review the recommendation of the BHP. After an independent
evaluation, the Adjudication Committee affirmed the BHP findings
and recommended the penalty of Dismissal to the Board of Directors
on January 7, 2012.

16. The Board of Directors approved the recommendation of

the Adjudication Committee, which sought to impose the penalty of
Dismissal to the Respondents on January 11, 2012. A memorandum
was issued to the Respondents dated on the same day apprising the
Respondents of their penalty.

17. An Appeal Memorandum was filed by the Respondents to

the Civil Service Commission in December 3, 2012. In the CSC
decision no. 130415, the CSC affirmed the dismissal of the
Respondents finding them guilty of the charges against them. On
June 6, 2013, a Motion for Reconsideration was filed by the
Respondents but was also subsequently Denied by the Commission
on August 27, 2013.

18. Unsatisfied, the Respondents filed a Petition for Review

under Rule 43 of the Rules of Procedure with the Court of Appeals on
October 13, 2013 praying for the Reversal of the CSC decision which
affirmed PAGCOR in imposing the penalty of Dismissal to the
Respondents.

19. On July 31, 2017, the Court of Appeals unfortunately

reversed and set aside the well-founded decision of the CSC.
Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the decision but was denied
on August 18, 2017.

Hence, this instant Petition.

7
 GROUNDS FOR ALLOWANCE OF THE PETITION

I. ON QUESTION OF PROCEDURE AND

JURISDICTION. THE HONORABLE COURT
OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE AND
REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT
COMPLETELY DISREGARDED THE
FINDINGS OF THE CIVIL SERVICE WHICH
LEAD TO MISAPPREHENSION OF
RELEVANT FACTS

20. It is a rule that only questions of law may be raised in a

petition for Review on Certiorari. But this rule is not absolute and
admits of exceptions if sufficiently alleged, substantiated, and proved
by the party raising it. At present, there are 10 recognized exceptions
that were first listed in Medina v. Mayor Asistio, Jr.:

xxx

(4) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;

xxx

(5) When the findings of fact are conflicting;

xxx

(7) The findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of

the trial court1;

21. In the case of Juan Castillo v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No.

106472, August 7, 1996), The Supreme Court elaborated:

“An exception thereto occurs where the findings of fact of the

Court of Appeals are at variance with the trial court, in which
case the [Supreme] Court reviews the evidence in order to arrive
at the correct findings based on the records.”

Clearly, this case falls within the exceptions. The identical

findings of the PAGCOR and the Civil Service Commission as the
quasi-judicial equivalent of the trial courts to government employment
disputes, regarding the dismissal of the Respondents are utterly
contradicted by that of the Court of Appeals in their Decision and
Resolution.

1 Medina v. Mayor Asistio, G.R. No. 75450, November 8, 1990

8
 22. Although it is within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals
to conduct its own findings of fact regarding matters elevated to it, to
give no weight to any of the findings of the Civil Service Commission
which was instituted to specialize in dealing with the service related
cases of Government Employees is patently erroneous.

As to the exception of Misapprehension of facts:

A. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS

HAD ERRONEOUSLY MISAPPRECIATED
CASINO OPERATIONS AND FACILITIES

23. The Court of Appeals in their decision relied on the Sworn

Affidavit of Treasury Head Benito M. Sanchez that there had been no
record of anomaly in the account of casino tokens upon the inventory
between 6:00AM to 2:00PM of December 30, 2011. To conclude that
there had been no proof of incongruity of Casino operations is
erroneous.

On Treasury Capital and Tokens-in-play

24. The Honorable Court of Appeals opines that since

Respondent PAGCOR’s Treasury Head stated there were no missing
and/or lost tokens in the Treasury capital, therefore there were no
missing tokens in the casino. The Honorable Court is gravely
mistaken in this regard. Tokens in circulation or in play do not form
part of the inventory of Treasury capital. Hence, it is of no moment
that the tokens are complete in the Treasury capital. The tokens in
circulation or in play in the Slot Machine area can still be taken
without affecting the Treasury capital.

25. Casino Tokens in-play or at the hands of the Casino

Patrons are considered to be out of the circulation and of accounts of
the Treasury. While in play, the Casino tokens are in full control of
the Patron, whether the Patron decides to play it immediately or not,
they are not accounted for in the Casino records. Only after there is
an actual collection and crosschecking of accounts from the Casino
Cashier and the Slot Machines or Casino Tables, there can be true
determination whether there has been irregularity in the accounts of
the Casino Tokens.

26. Clearly from the foregoing, the statement of the Treasury

Head cannot be used as basis to conclude that the Respondents did
not steal the casino tokens since the same is not indicative of the
accurate inventory of the Treasury capital.

9
 On Slot Machine Function and Operation

27. Clearly, as tokens were taken out of the Slot machine

without supervision, the proper Tally of tokens cannot accurately
display in the Treasury accounts whether there are missing/lost
tokens. This elucidates on the matter that the Affidavit of Treasury
Head Benito Sanchez stating “..there were no missing and/or lost
tokens in the Treasury Capital…”
28. A slot machine is a solid cabinet-type fixture. There are no
parts on a slot machine that are readily detachable by hand.
Respondent PAGCOR’s employees in the gaming area are not
allowed to carry any items on their person on the floor. They are not
even allowed to have pockets in their items of clothing.

29. No other things or components except tokens may be

taken out of the slot machine during repair or maintenance on the
casino floor. If there is a need for other components to be removed
from the slot machine, the whole slot machine is to be taken out.
Therefore, when ABSO Salvatierra stated Petitioner Sandee Adora
(Adora) was getting something from INSIDE the slot machine, the
Branch Management Panel correctly concluded that those were
tokens.

30. It is also of great note that slot machine displays behave

the same way whether or not it is being played. The lights flash, it
emits sounds and the displays are mobile. It is also possible to drop
tokens into a slot machine and not actually play it. A player can
always just press a button to get his tokens back.

31. It is obvious that Gilbert Saberon (Saberon) pretended to

play the machine as a ploy to avoid suspicion. Otherwise, the ploy
would have called the attention of the Close Circuit Television
(CCTV) Operators and Security staff monitoring the area.

32. Saberon well knew that if he did not pretend to play he

would be sent out of the casino since it is against house rules to stay
in the casino without playing within a reasonable period of time.

33. Therefore, there is no conflict between the statements of

ABSO Salvatierra and Slot Machine Operations Supervisor (SMOS)
Zaldy Amaroto (Amaroto). Saberon obviously pretended to play the
machine to escape early detection. Hence, from ABSO Salvatierra’s
point of view, it appeared that he was playing the Slot Machine and
ABSO Salvatierra reported it as it appeared.

34. From ABSO Salvatierra’s point of view, Saberon was

playing because ABSO Salvatierra was relying on the images

10
captured by the CCTV. The slot machine personnel on the other hand
relied on the meter count of the slot machine.

35. In fact the situation rather than weakening the case of

Respondent PAGCOR strengthens it. For while Saberon created the
appearance that he was playing, the slot machine count shows he
was not, thus proving that Saberon was acting maliciously.

36. Aside from the testimonies of the witnesses, it must be

emphasized that the said CCTV footage was viewed several times by
both the prosecution and the petitioners with their counsel. It was
interpreted by a Video and Surveillance Officer, who has been
serving as such for twenty-five (25) years and whose expertise in his
field and at casino operations cannot be questioned absent any ill
motive.

37. It is highly suspect that petitioners in all their pleadings

until their appeal to the Civil Service Commission never gave their
actual account/version of what transpired, never questioned the
alleged act of conspiracy imputed the witnesses but instead merely
discussed the events that happened after the passing of tokens,
specifically when witness Saberon was invited by Respondent
PAGCOR’s security personnel.

38. Moreover, the petitioners failed to present any evidence,

documentary or testimonial until their appeal before the Civil Service
Commission. Instead, they invoked the denial of due process and
procedural defects in the investigation.

39. Furthermore, Adora was in the Gaming area conducting

Slot machine maintenance. Slot machines #17 and #18 that he
attended to were reported to be dysfunctional. In Adora’s Prefatory
Declaration of Innocence (Hereto attached as ANNEX “I”), to wit:

1. On the First Charge: Serious Dishonesty

”x x x …I did not notice Gilbert Saberon only until we completed

the morning routine and he called my attention because the
machine he was playing malfunctioned”

Saberon at that time was playing on his usual spot Slot

Machine #17.

40. It can be said that these machines could not have been
recording the proper tally of the Tokens within. As a person well-
versed in the knowledge of the operation and function of Slot

11
Machines, Adora could have easily manipulated the machines to not
show that there has been anomaly in the tally of the Machines.

41. Furthermore, the Affidavit of SMOS Zaldy Amoroto and

Gemer Punongbayan stated “that Slot Machine #18 had not been
played from 1:00 am of 30 December 2011 up to the time we verified
it around 11:30 am.” Is not inconsistent with the Salvatierra’s Sworn
Affidavit as slot machine #18 was opened by Adora (as indicated on
his Prefatory Declaration of Innocence) on the day of the incident
meaning it had needed repairs and may not have displayed or tallied
the correct token count.

B. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS

HAD ERRONEOUSLY DISCOUNTED THE
VERACITY OF ABSO SALVATIERRA’S
SWORN AFFIDAVIT

42. The CCTV footage of the incident was previously presented

in the Civil Service Commission investigation of the matter together
with the affidavit of ABSO Salvatierra’s to support it. With all due
respect, It is erroneous of the Court of Appeals to declare that the
affidavit be considered hearsay, as it did not accompany the CCTV
recordings, when the CCTV footage which prompted the execution of
the Affidavit was previously presented by the Petitioner in the Formal
Investigation phase during a simultaneous viewing with the
Respondents, and to the Civil Service Commission and the records of
the case have been elevated to them as mandated by Court Process.

43. Also, the strict application of the Rules of Procedure should

not have been applied in the appreciation of Salvatierra’s Sworn
Affidavit. The said affidavit was presented to an administrative
proceeding and as by the Supreme Court in Land Bank of the
Philippines v. Leonila Celada, G.R. No. 164876, January 23, 2006:

“After all, technical rules of procedure are not ends in

themselves but are primarily devised to help in the proper and
expedient dispensation of justice. In appropriate cases,
therefore, the rules may be construed liberally in order to meet
and advance the cause of substantial justice.”

44. Salvatierra’s duty as Assistant Branch Surveillance Officer

(ABSO) permits his access to view CCTV footage that is strategically
positioned in areas of interest in the gaming area. Assigned to
specifically monitor the CCTV cameras in the casino floor, his
surveillance was his own act of perception on the incident, embodied
in a Sworn Affidavit.

12
 45. Aside from the testimonies of the witnesses, it must be
emphasized that the said CCTV footage was viewed several times by
both the prosecution and the petitioners with their counsel. It was
interpreted by a Video and Surveillance Officer, who has been
serving as such for twenty-five (25) years and whose expertise in his
field and at casino operations cannot be questioned absent any ill
motive.

46. The CCTV footage taken with the testimony the witnesses
who have gaming expertise and experience is adequate as
Substantial Evidence.

47. Moreover, the subsequent execution of Gilbert Saberon of

his Affidavit of Recantation should be have been given less weight
and should not be taken against Salvatierra’s sworn Affidavit.
Recantations are viewed with suspicion and reservation. The Court
looks with disfavor upon retractions of testimonies previously given in
court. The rationale for the rule is obvious: affidavits of retraction can
easily be secured from witnesses, usually through intimidation or for a
monetary consideration (Regidor, Jr. v. People, G.R. Nos. 166086-
92, February 13, 2009 citing Balderama v. People, G.R. Nos.
147578-85 and G.R. Nos. 147598-605, January 28, 2008).

48. Recanted testimony is exceedingly unreliable. There is

always the probability that it will later be repudiated. Only when there
exist special circumstances in the case which when coupled with the
retraction raise doubts as to the truth of the testimony or statement
given, can retractions be considered and upheld (People of the
Philippines. v. Lamsen, G.R. No. 198338, November 13, 2013).

II. ON QUESTION OF APPLICATION OF LAW.

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
COMMITTED GRAVE AND REVERSIBLE
ERROR WHEN IT REVERSED AND SET ASIDE
DECISION OF THE CIVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION IN AFFIRMING THE
PETITIONER’S DISMISSAL OF THE
RESPONDENTS BASED ON VIOLATION OF
PAGCOR COMPANY POLICY ON SERIOUS
MISCONDUCT AND GROSS NEGLECT OF
DUTY.

49. PAGCOR’s Company Personnel Policies and Regulations

define Serious Misconduct as “…a deliberate act or a series of acts
by the employee that violates a known rule or Company Policy.

13
Culpable Misconduct is behavior that has the following
Characteristics:

1. The Employee knows, or could reasonably be expected to

know, what is required;

2. The Employee is capable of carrying out what is required;

3. The Employee chooses to perform in a manner other than is

required.

50. While Gross Neglect of Duty is defined as inexcusable or

wanton negligence and open disregard of one’s duties and functions.

51. It is an established fact that Adora was charged with

Serious Misconduct and De Vera was charged with Serious
Misconduct and Gross Neglect of Duty as stated in the formal
charges against the Respondents. The formal charges clearly apprise
the Respondents, giving them the definition of the charges as well as
a description of their acts that comprise of the charges.

52. Adora was employed by PAGCOR as a Slot Machine

Maintenance Assistant (SMTA) with the primary duties to repair and
maintain slot machines used in the casino slot machine gaming area.
Slot Machine Maintenance follow protocol while performing their
tasks while inside the gaming area to preserve the security and
integrity of the gaming machines as well as protect the casino from
fraudulent activity. It is established PAGCOR protocol that repair and
maintenance activities be with Internal Security supervision at all
times to maintain the integrity and trustworthiness of Casino Function
and Security. In fact, this suspicious act is what triggered ABSO
Salvatierra’s attention. In his sworn Affidavit, to wit:

“…Technician Adora opened slot machine #18 and IS De Vera

just passed by him while he was getting something inside the
machine.”

53. It is highly suspicious that the SMTA Adora would continue

working on the Slot Machines without Internal Security Supervision.
Adora at the time of the incident was not newly hired and as said in
his prefatory declaration of Innocence that “he had received
promotions” at PAGCOR and is familiar with the Standard Casino
Protocol and Operations.

54. De Vera was employed by PAGCOR as Internal Security

Staff, which has the duty to maintain order in the Gaming area.
14
Internal Security has the responsibility of upholding the safety and
security of the gaming area for the Casino patrons as well as guard
the Casino from potential malicious acts. It is protocol that during
maintenance of Casino property, Internal Security oversee the activity
with an eagle-eye to assure that there are no lapses in the security
and safety of the Patrons and the Casino.

55. On the day of the incident, De Vera was detailed in the Slot
machine area. In fact, he was caught by the CCTV cameras to have
been in the premises and even passed by Adora while servicing Slot
machine no. 18 wherein he ignored protocol to oversee the
maintenance activities done by Adora. In his very own affidavit, he
admitted to have been detailed in the Slot Machine area of the
Casino.

“4. That on December 30, 2011, I reported to Casino Mactan

before the 6:00AM. x x x

5. That however, IS Punongbayan told me that there was no

one who could relieve because we were only three (3) duty IS,
one was assigned at the treasury, he was at the VIP and I was
in the gaming area. x x x”

(Copies of the Affidavit of William B. De Vera are hereto attached as

ANNEX “J”)

This is further supported by ABSO Salvatierra’s sworn Affidavit,

to wit:

“…Technician Adora opened slot machine #18 and IS De Vera

just passed by him while he was getting something inside the
machine.”

Furthermore, the Affidavit executed by Roy I, Montelibano,

Internal Security Staff who reviewed the CCTV footage, support this,
to wit:

“CCTV footage revealed that O/A 30 0830H December 2011 at

SM area, Slot machine #18, SM Tech Sandy ADORA opened
the said machine with IS William DE VERA as witnessed, but
the said IS left the said SM Tech while the slot machine
door is still opened and the SM Tech still conducting a
service.”

(Copies of the Affidavit of Roy I. Montelibano are hereto attached as

ANNEX “K”)
15
 55. His act of non-observance of Standard Protocol procedure
to oversee the maintenance is indubitably tantamount to palpable
Neglect of Duty.

56. Clearly, the findings of the PAGCOR as well as the

affirmation of the Findings by the CSC substantiate this flagrant
disregard of duty. The Court of Appeals ignored the fact that although
Salvatierra’s affidavit may not clearly identify what was actually taken
from the slot machines, the Honorable Court of Appeals cannot deny
that the Respondents ignored the protocol required of them as Slot
Machine Maintenance Assistant and Internal Security Staff. To simply
brush off the lapses in duty is a serious matter in the casino business
as it may cause grave and irreparable damage.

57. The acts struck down by the Court of Appeals as unproven

are only the complications of the organic acts of Gross Negligence
and Serious Misconduct. These organic acts of Negligence and
Misconduct constitute the acts complained of and are sufficient basis
for the charges filed against the Respondents. The non-performance
of established protocol in casino security and business pose serious
risks and potential damage to PAGCOR. The Respondents have
admitted to committing these acts in their affidavits and answers to
the formal charges.

58. Misconduct has a legal and uniform definition. Misconduct

has been defined as an intentional wrongdoing or a deliberate
violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior (emphasis
supplied), especially by a government official. A misconduct is grave
where the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or
flagrant disregard of established rule are present. (Monico K.
Imperial, Jr., v. Government Service Insurance System, G.R. No.
191224, October 4, 2011.)

59. The Respondents’ disregard of their duty warrant the

penalty of dismissal. If these protocols are not followed, grave and
serious damage may be suffered by the Casino, as well as tarnishing
the name of PAGCOR as the reputable Gaming and Amusement
Corporation of the Government. Among the Government Owned and
Controlled Corporations, PAGCOR has been one of the best
contributors in raising funds for nation-building. If the reputation of
PAGCOR is smeared and blemished by poor security and wanton
disregard for the performance of duties, as Respondents have done,

16
it may cause the corporation to lose its loyal Patrons and as a direct
result thereof, Government Revenue will be affected.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE PRAYER

FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (TRO)
AND/OR WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Petitioner hereby adopts, re-pleads and incorporates all the

foregoing allegations insofar as they are material and relevant hereto.

60. The implementation of the CSC Resolution for

Respondent’s reinstatement should be held in abeyance by this
Honorable Court by issuing a TRO and/or writ of preliminary
injunction, otherwise grave and irreparable injury shall be suffered by
PAGCOR, in particular, and the gaming clientele, in general.

61. If doubts are cast in the integrity of the casino operations,

the revenues that are generated therefrom will be adversely affected.
If there is a shortfall in the casino revenues, the various poverty-
alleviation and other socio-civic activities that are funded by the
petitioner will suffer. Also, the petitioner’s capability to provide the
funding requirements for the various legislative enactments will be
seriously challenged.

62. Moreover, the conclusions of the Court of Appeals in the

assailed decision dwelt on its misapprehension of the facts of the
case. This buttresses Petitioner’s argument that pending the
resolution of this case before this Honorable Supreme Court, a TRO
and/or preliminary injunction must be issued; otherwise, the Court of
Appeals would be implementing a decision which is clearly against
existing laws and unsupported by proper statement of facts.

63. Petitioner PAGCOR hereby manifests its willingness to

post a bond in an amount to be fixed by this Honorable Court in the
event a TRO and/or preliminary injunction will be issued, unless, the
Petitioner is exempted therefrom.

PRAYER

1. WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most

respectfully prayed of this Honorable Supreme Court that after
due proceedings, Judgment be rendered in favor of the
Petitioner, REVERSING AND SETTING ASIDE the Decision of
the Court of Appeals and reviving the Decision of the Civil

17
 Service Commission in affirming PAGCOR’s dismissal of the
Respondents.

2. That the Petition for Review be given due course.

3. That pending the hearing and determination of the merits

of the Petition, a Temporary Restraining Order and/or a
Preliminary Injunction is issued restraining the Honorable Court
of Appeals from implementing and enforcing the July 17, 2017
decision and January 16, 2018 resolution.

4. And that the Writ of Preliminary Injunction be ordered

Permanent.

Other reliefs deemed just and equitable under the premises are
likewise prayed for.

Manila, Philippines February 7, 2018

PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION

Legal Services Group
PAGCOR Executive office
th
6 Floor New World Manila Bay Hotel,
M.H. Del Pilar cor. Pedro Gil, Malate, Manila
Tel. No. 242-0121 local 632

By:

ATTY. MARIA CONCEPCION GLORIA-RUBIO

Roll of Attorney No. 45775
PTR No. 7003422, January 5, 2018, Manila, Philippines
IBP Lifetime No. 02723
MCLE Compliance No. V-0010115, September 7, 2015

ATTY. LAWRENCE EMMANUEL C. SOLIS

Roll of Attorney No. 70243
PTR No. 7107597, January 30, 2018, Manila, Philippines
IBP No. 028221, January 17, 2018 Pasig City
MCLE Compliance No. N/A (Admitted 2017)

18
 Copy furnished:
ATTY. ROLANDO C. TIEMPO
Counsel for the Respondents
No. 45 M.J. Cuenco Avenue
6000 Cebu City

COURT OF APPEALS (FIFTH DIVISION)

Manila

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

CSC Building, IBP Road, Constitution Hills
Batasang Pambansa Complex, Diliman
1226 Quezon City

EXPLANATION
In compliance with Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure, counsel respectfully manifests that service of the
above motion is done by registered mail, personal service is not
being practicable at the present time for lack of manpower.

19
 VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

I, ATTY. RODERICK R. CONSOLACION, of legal age, Filipino,

married, and with office address at Legal Services Group, PAGCOR
Executive Office, 6th floor New World Manila Bay Hotel, M.H, Del Pilar
cor. Pedro Gil Sts. Malate Manila, after having been sworn to in
accordance with law, do hereby depose and state:

1. That I am the Authorized Representative of the Philippine

Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR);
2. That I have caused the preparation and filing of the
foregoing Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45
with Prayer for Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order
and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction on behalf of PAGCOR;
3. That I have read the contents thereof and that the
allegations therein are true and correct of my own personal
knowledge and based on authentic records;
4. That to the best of my knowledge, no similar action is
pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or
different divisions thereof, or any other court, tribunal, or
quasi-judicial agency, except a case originating from the
Court of Appeals former Fifth Division entitled: SANDEE S.
ADORA and WILLIAM B. DE VERA v. PHILIPPINE
AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION (CA G.R.
No. 132051).
5. That if there is such other action or proceeding, I will
hereafter state the status of the same;
6. That if I should thereafter learn that a similar action or
proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme
Court, the Court of Appeals, or different divisions thereof, or
any other court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial agency, I hereunto
undertake to promptly inform of this court, and/or the
aforesaid courts and other tribunals or agency thereof within
five (5) days therefrom;
7. I am executing this sworn statement in compliance with
Section 6, rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Procedure.

IN WITNESS THEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature

this __ day of ______________, 2018, at Manila, Philippines.

20
 ATTY. RODERICK R. CONSOLACION
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ___ day of

_________, 2018, at Manila, Philippines affiant is personally known
to the undersigned and exhibited to me his
____________________________ that is to expire on
______________, issued by ___________________.

21
 VERIFIED DECLARATION

I, LAWRENCE EMMANUEL C. SOLIS, hereby declare that the

PETITION FOR REVIEW UNDER RULE 45 WITH PRAYER FOR
WRIT OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND/OR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION and the annexes thereon hereto
submitted electronically in accordance with the Efficient use of Paper
Rule and are complete and true copies of the documents (and
annexes) filed with the Supreme Court.

LAWRENCE EMMANUEL C. SOLIS

Legal Counsel for PAGCOR
February 7, 2018

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 5th day of

February, 2018, affiant exhibiting his driver’s license, N01-06-019049

22