Case Digest (G.R. No. L-40252) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
The case involves the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (petitioner) and two respondents, Marita A. Angara and Beatriz T. La Victoria. Both Angara and La Victoria were employed as Slot Machine Roving Token Attendants (SMRTAs) at the petitioner’s casino located in Davao City. On June 28, 1997, they were dismissed from their positions based on allegations of loss of trust and confidence. After their motion for reconsideration of the dismissal was denied, they appealed to the Civil Service Commission (CSC). On May 27, 1999, the CSC issued Resolution No. 991110, granting their appeal and directing the petitioner to reinstate them to their prior roles or to comparable positions. However, the petitioner challenged this resolution by filing a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA), which subsequently dismissed the petition due to late filing. The petitioner’s subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied, prompting them to elevate the case to the Supreme
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-40252) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
Employment and Dismissal:
- Respondents, Marita A. Angara and Beatriz T. La Victoria, were employed as Slot Machine Roving Token Attendants (SMRTAs) by the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) at its casino in Davao City.
- On June 28, 1997, they were dismissed from service on the grounds of lack of trust and confidence.
Administrative Proceedings:
- After their dismissal, respondents filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by PAGCOR.
- They then filed an appeal memorandum with the Civil Service Commission (CSC).
- On May 27, 1999, the CSC issued Resolution No. 991110, granting the appeal and directing PAGCOR to reinstate respondents to their former positions or, if no longer available, to comparable positions.
Judicial Proceedings:
- PAGCOR filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA), but the CA dismissed the petition for late filing.
- PAGCOR's motion for reconsideration was also denied by the CA.
- PAGCOR then filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court.
- On November 15, 2005, the Supreme Court rendered a Decision finding that the CA erred in dismissing the petition on procedural grounds but held that PAGCOR's substantial contentions failed to justify respondents' dismissal. The Court ruled that respondents were not confidential employees and thus could not be dismissed on the grounds of loss of trust and confidence. The petition was denied.
Post-Decision Proceedings:
- On January 3, 2006, PAGCOR filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied with finality by the Supreme Court on February 22, 2006.
- The Resolution dated February 22, 2006, addressed to respondents, was returned unserved. It was re-sent to respondents on June 5, 2006.
- On June 14, 2006, respondents filed a Motion for Clarification, which they characterized as a partial motion for reconsideration. They sought clarification on whether they were entitled to backwages, allowances, and other benefits, in addition to reinstatement. They also prayed for reimbursement of expenses and attorney's fees.
Issues:
- Whether respondents are entitled to backwages, allowances, and other benefits, in addition to reinstatement, following their illegal dismissal.
- Whether respondents are entitled to reimbursement for expenses and attorney's fees.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court partly granted the Motion for Clarification, affirming respondents' entitlement to reinstatement and backwages but denying their claim for reimbursement of expenses and attorney's fees. The case was remanded to the CSC for the computation of backwages.