Pollo v. v. Constantino-Da Constantino-David, vid, G.R. No. 181881, 181881, 18 October October 2011 2011 POSTED IN
CONLAW2 cases BY katcobing
Facts
Respondent CSC Chai Constantino!Da"id ecei"ed an anon#$o%s &ette co$p&aint a&&eging o' an ano$a taking p&ace in the Regiona& O''ice o' the CSC( The espondent then 'o$ed a tea$ and iss%ed a $e$o diecting the tea$ )to back %p a&& the 'i&es in the co$p%tes 'o%nd in the *a$a$a#an *%na +PALD, +PALD, and Lega& di"isions(-
Se"ea& diskettes containing the back!%p 'i&es so%ced 'o$ the had disk o' PALD and LSD co$p%tes .ee t%ned o"e to Chaipeson Da"id( The c ontents o' the diskettes .ee e/a$ined b# the CSC0s O''ice 'o Lega& A''ais A''ais +OLA,( It .as 'o%nd that $ost o' the 'i&es in the 1 diskettes containing 'i&es copied 'o$ the co$p%te assigned to and being %sed b# the petitione3 n%$being abo%t 45 to 42 doc%$ents3 .ee da't p&eadings o &ettesin connection .ith ad$inistati"e cases in the CSC and othe tib%na&s( On the basis o' this 'inding3 Chaipeson Da"id iss%ed the Sho.!Ca%se Ode3 e6%iing the petitione3 .ho had gone on e/tended &ea"e3 to s%b$it his e/p&anation o co%nte!a''ida"it co%nte!a''ida"it .ithin 'i"e da#s 'o$ notice(
In his Co$$ent3 petitione denied the acc%sations against hi$ and acc%sed the CSC O''icia&s o' )'ishing e/pedition- .hen the# %n&a.'%& copied and pinted pesona& 'i&es in his co$p%te(
7e .as chaged o' "io&ating R(A( No( 819 +Code +Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees,( Employees,( 7e assai&ed the 'o$a& chage and 'i&ed an O$nib%s *otion ++:o Reconsideation3 to Dis$iss and;o to De'e, assai&ing the 'o$a& chage as .itho%t basis ha"ing poceeded 'o$ an i&&ega& seach .hich is be#ond the a%thoit# o' the CSC Chai$an3 s%ch po.e petaining so&e to the co%t(
The CSC denied the o$nib%s o $nib%s $otion and teated the $otion as the petitione0s ans.e to the chage( In "ie. o' the absence o' petitione and his co%nse&3 and %pon % pon the $otion o' the posec%tion3 petitione p etitione .as dee$ed to ha"e .ai"ed .a i"ed his ight to the 'o$a& in"estigation .hich then poceeded ex parte.
The petitione .as dis$issed 'o$ se"ice( 7e 'i&ed a petition to the CA .hich .as dis$issed b# the &atte on the go%nd that it 'o%nd no ga"e ab%se o' discetion on the pat o' the espondents( 7e 'i&ed a
$otion 'o econsideation .hich .as '%the denied b# the appe&&ate co%t( 7ence3 this petition(
Issue
WON the seach cond%cted b# the CSC on the co$p%te o' the petitione constit%ted an i&&ega& seach and .as a "io&ation o' his constit%tiona& ight to pi"ac#
Ruling
The seach cond%cted on his o''ice co$p%te and the cop#ing o' his pesona& 'i&es .as &a.'%& and did not "io&ate his constit%tiona& ight(
Ratio Decidendi
In this case3 the Co%t had the chance to pesent the cases i&&%stati"e o' the iss%e aised b # the petitione(
Katz v. United States 3! U.S. "3# $%!'( the %stice 7a&an noted that the e/istence o' pi"ac# ight %nde pio decisions in"o&"ed a t.o!'o&d e6%ie$ent? 'ist3 that a peson has e/hibited an act%a& +s%b@ecti"e, e/pectation o' pi"ac# and second3 that the e/pectation be one that societ# is pepaed to ecogni=e as easonab&e +ob@ecti"e,(
)ancusi v. *e+orte 3!, U.S. 3&"( S.Ct. ,%,-( ,- .Ed,d %%/" $%!&'(th%s )ecogni=ed that e$p&o#ees $a# ha"e a easonab&e e/pectation o' pi"ac# against int%sions b# po&ice(O0Connor v. Orte1a "- U.S. #-! $%!#'( the Co%t categoica& dec&aed that )indi"id%a&s do not &ose :o%th A$end$ent ights $ee beca%se the# .ok 'o the go"en$ent instead o' a pi"ate e$p&o#e(- In O0Connor the Co%t ecogni=ed that )specia& needs- a%thoi=e .aant&ess seaches
in"o&"ing p%b&ic e$p&o#ees 'o .ok!e&ated easons( The Co%t th%s &aid do.n a ba&ancing test %nde .hich go"en$ent inteests ae .eighed against the e$p&o#ee0s easonab&e e/pectation o' pi"ac#( This easonab&eness test i$p&icates neithe pobab&e ca%se no the .aant e6%ie$ent3 .h ich ae e&ated to &a. en'oce$ent( Social 2ustice Society $S2S' v. *an1erous *ru1s oard 4.5. 6os. %/##-( %/&33 and %&%&/( 6ovember 3( ,--( /#- SC57 "%-( ",#( $citin1 Ople v. 8orres( 4.5. 6o. %,#&/( 2uly ,3( %!!( ,!3 SC57 %"%( %&!'( ecogni=ed the 'act that thee $a# be s%ch &egiti$ate int%sion o' pi"ac# in the .okp&ace( The Co%t %&ed that the petitione did not ha"e a easonab&e e/pectation o' pi"ac# in his o''ice and co$p%te 'i&es( As to the second point o' in6%i#3 the Co%t ans.eed in the a''i$ati"e( The seach a%thoi=ed b# the CSC Chai3 the cop#ing o' the contents o' the ha d di"e on petitione0s co$p%te easonab&e in its inception and scope( The Co%t noted that %n&ike in the case o' 7nonymous etter9Complaint a1ainst 7tty. )i1uel )orales( Cler: of Court( )etropolitan 8rial Court of )anila 7.). 6os. P9-9,/%! and P9- 9,/,-( 6ovember %!( ,--( /#% SC57 3&%( the case at ba in"o&"es the co$p%te 'o$ .hich the pesona& 'i&es o' the petitione .ee etie"ed is a go"en$ent!iss%ed co$p%te3 hence go"en$ent popet# the %se o' .hich the CSC has abso&%te ight to eg%&ate and $onito(