 Right to Privacy in Communication and Correspondebce /Ma Irish

Pollo v. David , G.R. No. 181881

October 11, 2011

FACTS:

Respondent the CSC Chairperson Karina David conducted an investigation as she was received an
anonymous letter that there was a corrupt official in the commission. She then instructed to the personnel
to back up all the files in the hard disk of all the computer within.

Several diskettes containing the backup files was examined by the CSC Office for Legal affairs. It was found
out that the contents copied from the computer are being used by the petitioner Briccio Pollo, were
documents, a draft of pleadings or letters in connection of administrative cases in the CSC and other
tribunals.

The CSC found the petitioner guilty of dishonesty, grave misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the best
interest of the service and violation of Republic Act No. 6713 and penalized him for dismissal from the
service.

Petitioner filed a petition to the CA, he contends that the CSC Officials conducting Fishing Expedition when
they unlawfully copied and printed personal files in his computer as these would violate his constitutional
right to privacy and protection against self-incrimination and warrant search and seizure. But the CA
affirmed the decision of the CSC.

ISSUE:

Does the Court violate the right to privacy of the petitioner over his computer and electronic file as a
government employee?

RULING:

The search conducted on petitioner’s computer and copying his personal files was lawful and does not
violate his right to privacy.

The CSC had implemented a policy that put its employees on notice that they have no expectation of
privacy in anything they create, store, send or receive on the office computer’s, and that the CSC may
monitor that the use of the computer resources using both automated or by human means. An office
Memorandum No. 10, S. 2002 “Computer Use Policy (CUP)” explicitly provided for such. This implied
therefore, that on-the-spot inspections may be done to ensure that the computer resources were used
only for such legitimate business purpose. The search of petitioner’s computer files was conducted in
connection with investigation of work related misconduct prompted by an anonymous letter that there
was a corrupt official in the CSC. A search by a government employer of an employee’s office is justified
at inception when there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that it will turn up evidence that the
employees is guilty of work-related misconduct, thus, petitioner’s computer is government property and
the use of which the CSC has absolute right to regulate and monitor. Hence, any evidence found on
petitioner’s computer is admissible against him.