Maglalang vs Pagcor

Case No. 9

MAGLALANG vs PAGCOR PAGCOR FACTS: FACTS: Petitioner was a teller at the Casino Filipino, was operated by respondent Philippine A!seent and Gain" Corporation #PAGCOR$, a "overnent%owned or &ontrolled &orporation' (e&eber )*, +-, while he was per.orin" his .!n&tions, a lady &!stoer identi.ied later as one Ce&ilia Na/asato approa&hed hi in his booth and handed to hi an !ndeterined ao!nt o. &ash o. P0,'' Followin" &asino pro&ed!re, petitioner laid the bills on the spreadin" board' 1owever, he erroneo!sly spread the bills into only .o!r &l!sters instead o. .ive &l!sters worth P),' per &l!ster' 1e then pla&ed ar/ers .or P),' ea&h &l!ster o. &ash and de&lared the total ao!nt o. P2,' to Ce&ilia' Ce&ilia as/ed petitioner why the latter only dished o!t P2,'' She then pointed to the .irst &l!ster o. bills and re3!ested petitioner to &he&/ the .irst &l!ster whi&h she observed to be thi&/er than the others' Petitioner per.ored a re&o!nt and .o!nd that the said &l!ster &ontained + pie&es o. P),' bills' Petitioner apolo"i4ed to Ce&ilia and re&ti.ied the error' Petitioner, however, averred that Ce&ilia a&&!sed hi o. tryin" to short&han"e her and that petitioner tried to deliberately .ool her o. her oney' Petitioner tried to e5plain, b!t Ce&ilia alle"edly &ontin!ed to berate and &!rse hi' As a res!lt, the two o. the were invited to the &asino6s 7nternal Se&!rity O..i&e in order to air their respe&tive sides' Therea.ter, petitioner was re3!ired to .ile an 7n&ident Report whi&h he s!bitted on the sae day o. the in&ident' On 8an!ary -, +9, petitioner re&eived a Meorand! iss!ed by the &asino6s ;ran&h Mana"er, in.orin" hi that he was bein" &har"ed with (is&o!rtesy towards a &asino &!stoer and dire&tin" hi to e5plain within + ho!rs !pon re&eipt o. the eorand!' Petitioner s!bitted a letter%e5planation - dated 8an!ary ), +9' On Mar&h *), +9, petitioner re&eived another Meorand!, .o!nd hi "!ilty o. (is&o!rtesy towards a &asino &!stoer and iposed on hi a *%day s!spension .or this .irst o..ense'  April +, +9, petitioner petitioner .iled .iled a Motion Motion .or Re&onsid Re&onsideration eration and and Motion Motion .or prod!&tion prod!&tion see/in" a reversal o. the board6s de&ision and .!rther prayed in the alternative that i. he is indeed .o!nd "!ilty as &har"ed, the penalty be only a repriand as it is the appropriate penalty'  April +, +, +9, prayin" prayin" that that he be .!rnished .!rnished with &opies &opies o. do&!ent do&!ents s relative relative to the &ase in&l!din" the re&oendation o. the investi"atin" &oittee' 8!ne +, +9, one Atty' Carlos R' ;a!tista, 8r' to represent PAGCOR, denied the said otion' Petitioner re&eived said letter%reply on 8!ne ), +9'

Case No. 9

on 8!ne )-, +9, PAGCOR iss!ed a Meorand! )* in.orin" petitioner that the ;oard o. (ire&tors in its eetin" on May )*, +9 resolved to deny his appeal .or re&onsideration .or la&/ o. erit' On A!"!st ), +9, petitioner .iled a petition )0 .or &ertiorari !nder R!le R7S(7CT7ON O?R T1? S>SP?NS7ON OF T1? P?T7T7ON?R (?SP7T? T1? FACT T1AT T1? P?NALTB 7NOL?( 7S NOT MOR? T1AN T17RTB #*$ (ABS' 1?L(: Bes' CSC has =!risdi&tion over iss!es involvin" the eployer%eployee relationship in all bran&hes, s!bdivisions, instr!entalities and a"en&ies o. the Governent, in&l!din" "overnent%owned or &ontrolled &orporations with ori"inal &harters s!&h as PAGCOR'

PAGCOR belon"s to the Civil Servi&e be&a!se it was &reated dire&tly by P( )-