POLLO VS.

CONSTANTINO-DAVID (2011)

Facts:
Ann anonymous letter-complaint was received by the respondent Civil
Service Commission Chairperson alleging that an officer of the CSC has
been lawyering for public officials with pending cases in the CSC.
Chairperson David immediately formed a team with background in
information technology and issued a memorandum directing them “to
back up all the files in the computers found in the [CSC-ROIV]
Mamamayan Muna (PALD) and Legal divisions.”

The team proceeded at once to the office and backed up all files in the
hard disk of computers at the PALD and the Legal Services Division.
Within the same day, the investigating team finished the task. It was
found that most of the files copied from the computer assigned to and
being used by the petitioner were draft pleadings or letters in connection
with administrative cases in the CSC and other tribunals. Chairperson
David thus issued a Show-Cause Order requiring the petitioner to submit
his explanation or counter-affidavit within five days from notice.

Petitioner denied that he is the person referred to in the anonymous letter-

complaint. He asserted that he had protested the unlawful taking of his
computer done while he was on leave, and that the files in his computer
were his personal files and those of his relatives and associates, and that
he is not authorize the activities as they are in violation of his
constitutional right to privacy and protection against self-incrimination
and warrantless search and seizure.  Also, the files/documents copied
from his computer without his consent are inadmissible as evidence,
being “fruits of a poisonous tree.”

The CSC found prima facie case against the petitioner and charged him
with Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, Conduct Prejudicial to the Best
Interest of the Service and Violation of R.A. No. 6713 (Code of Conduct
and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees). On 24 July
2007, the CSC issued a Resolution finding petitioner GUILTY of the
same merits and meted the penalty of DISMISSAL FROM THE
SERVICE with all its accessory penalties. This Resolution was also
brought to the CA by herein petitioner.

By a Decision dated 11 October 2007, the CA dismissed the petitioner’s

petition for certiorari after finding no grave abuse of discretion committed
by respondents CSC officials.  His motion for reconsideration having
been denied by the CA, petitioner brought this appeal before the Supreme
Court.

Issue: Whether or not the search conducted and the copying of

petitioner’s files without his knowledge and consent lawful?

Held:
Yes. The right to privacy has been accorded recognition in this
jurisdiction as a facet of the right protected by the guarantee against
unreasonable search and seizure under Section 2, Article III of the 1987
Constitution. The constitutional guarantee is not a prohibition of all
searches and seizures

The LA dismissed the complaint. On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the decision of the LA
with the modification that Meralco was solidarily liable with the private respondents.
The CA on the other hand, modified the Decision of the NLRC and held Meralco to be
solidarily liable with the private respondent for the satisfaction of the labore