90Abskidoodle

CASE TITLE: Pollo vs Constantino David

G.R. NUMBER & DATE: G.R. No. 181881, October 18, 2011

NATURE OF CASE: Employees personal files as evidence of misconduct

DOCTRINE/PRINCIPLE: Searches and Seizures

PETITIONERS: Briccio Ricky A. Pollo, dismissed from service as Supervising Personnel

Specialist of the CSC

RESPONDENTS: CSC officials including: Chairperson Constantino-David, Raquel de

Guzman Buensalida (Director IV), Lydia Castillo (Director IV), Engelbert Donite (Director III)

Facts: An anonymous letter-complaint was mailed to the office of CSC Chairperson

Constantino David regarding an employee of the agency allegedly representing an accused
govt employee having a pending case in the CSC. Constanino-David issued a memo directing
four IT personnel to conduct an investigation by backing up the files of all computers in the in
the Mamamayan Muna (PALD) and Legal Divisions. Pollo and the head of the LSD were
informed by Director Unite of the order through text as they were out of the office at the time.
Pollo replied that he will just leave the matter to Director Unite and will just get a lawyer. Upon
examination by the Office for Legal Affairs, most of the files in the 17 diskettes containing files
copied from the computer assigned to and being used by the petitioner, numbering about 40
to 42 documents, were draft pleadings or letters[7] in connection with administrative cases in
the CSC and other tribunals. A show cause order was issued, and respondent through
comment that he is the person referred to in the complaint as he is not a lawyer and neither is
he lawyering for people with cases in the CSC. In February 2007, CSC issued a resolution
finding Pollo guilty of Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest
of the Service and rendering him under 90 days preventive suspension. He filed an Omnibus
Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that the formal charge originated from an illegal search, and
that the files were prepared by people whom he allowed to make use of his computer.
Attached to the motion were the affidavit of Atty. Ponciano R. Solosa who entrusted his own
files to be kept at petitioners CPU and Atty. Eric N. Estrellado. The CSC denied the Omnibus
Motion. Petitioner filed an urgent motion for a TRO in the CA and asked the CSC to suspend
the pre-hearing conference while waiting for the CA decision. The petitioner and his counsel
failed to appear in the pre-hearing and was deemed to have waived his right to the formal
investigation which then proceeded ex parte. The CSC issued a new resolution finding him
guilty of Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct, and dismissed him from service.

Jurisprudence
The CSC cited the following US cases: OConnor vs Ortega: government agencies, in their
capacity as employers, rather than law enforcers, could validly conduct search and seizure in
the governmental workplace without meeting the probable cause or warrant requirement for
search and seizure.

United States v. Mark L. Simons: Simons, a CIA employee was was convicted of
downloading materials containing child pornography. The CIA had a computer use policy
which stipulated that computers may only be used for official government business. The
offense was discovered through the regular audit of internet use by the agency, following the
same policy. The warrantless search of Simon’s office was upheld as valid because a
government employer is entitled to conduct a warrantless search pursuant to an investigation
of work-related misconduct provided the search is reasonable in its inception and scope. The
CA denied respondent’s appeal after finding no grave abuse of discretion by the CSC officials.

Petitioner’s Arguments: Respondent has no reasonable expectation of privacy due to the

computer use policy which unequivocally declared that a CSC employee cannot assert any
privacy right to a computer assigned to him. The search passed the reasonableness test for
warrantless searches.

Respondent's Arguments: Chairperson David had encroached on the authority of a judge in

view of the CSC computer policy; that the files acquired were inadmissible as evidence for
having been the result of an invalid search and seizure

ISSUE: W/N the search and seizure of the computer files were valid

FALLO: Petition for certoriari denied. CA decision affirmed.

HELD: YES. The search was valid for having passed the reasonableness standard, as there
was reasonable ground for suspecting that the files stored therein would yield incriminating
evidence relevant to the investigation being conducted by CSC as government employer of
such misconduct subject of the anonymous complaint. Respondent also cannot invoke the
right to privacy and communication under Section 3(1), Article III of the 1987 Constitution as it
was a legitimate intrusion accorded to the authorities.

The reasonableness standard states that  both the inception and the scope of the
intrusion must be reasonable:
Determining the reasonableness of any search involves a twofold
inquiry: first, one must consider whether the action was justified at its
inception, x x x ; second, one must determine whether the search as
actually conducted was reasonably related in scope to the
circumstances which justified the interference in the first place, x x x

Notes:
- The constitutional protection against unreasonable searches by the government does
not disappear merely because the government has the right to make reasonable
intrusions in its capacity as employer, x x x but some government offices may be so
open to fellow employees or the public that no expectation of privacy is reasonable. x
x x Given the great variety of work environments in the public sector, the question of
whether an employee has a reasonable expectation of privacy must be addressed on
a case-by-case basis.