Pollo vs. Constantino-David Digest
G.R. No. 181881: October 18, 2011 BRICCIO "Ricky" A. POLLO, Petitioner, v. CHAIRPR!ON ARINA CON!#AN#INO$%A&I%, %IRC#OR I& RAC'(L % G()*AN B(N!ALI%A, %IRC#OR I&L+%IA A. CA!#ILLO, %IRC#OR III NGLBR# AN#HON+ %. (NI# AN% #H CI&IL !R&IC CO**I!!ION, Re-onent.
FACTS: Petitioner is a former Supervising Personnel Specialist of the CSC Regional Office o. !" and also the Officer-in-Charge of the Pu#lic Assistance and $iaison Division %PA$D& under the'(amama)an (una *indi (ama)a a' program of the CSC. An unsigned letter-complaint addressed to respondent CSC Chairperson +arina Constantino-David mar,ed 'Confidential' as sent through a courier service. Acting upon the letter-complaintChairperson David immediatel) formed a team of four personnel ith #ac,ground in information technolog) %!T& and issued a memo directing them to conduct an investigation and specificall) 'to #ac, up all the files in the computers found in the (amama)an (una %PA$D& and $egal divisions.' The #ac,ing-up of all files in the hard dis, of computers at the PA$D and $egal Services Division %$SD& as itnessed #) several emplo)ees together ith Directors Castillo and /nite ho closel) monitored said activit). At around 0:11 p.m. Director /nite sent te2t messages to petitioner and the head h ead of $SD ho ere #oth out of the office at the time informing them of the ongoing o ngoing cop)ing of computer co mputer files in their divisions upon orders of the CSC Chair.Petitioner replied also thru te2t message that he as leaving the matter to Director /nite and that he ill 3ust get a la)er. The contents of the dis,ettes ere e2amined #) the CSCs Office for $egal Affairs %O$A&.!t as found that most of the files in the 45 dis,ettes containing files copied from the computer assigned to and #eing used #) the petitioner num#ering a#out 61 to 67 documents ere draft pleadings or lettersin connection ith administrative cases in the CSC and other tri#unals. On the #asis of this finding Chairperson David issued the Sho-Cause Order re8uiring the petitioner ho had gone on e2tended leave to su#mit his e2planation or counter-affidavit ithin five da)s from notice. Petitioner filed his Comment den)ing that he is the person referred to in the anon)mous letter-complaint hich had no attachments to it #ecause he is not a la)er and neither is he 'la)ering' for people ith cases in the CSC.*e accused CSC officials of conducting a 'fishing e2pedition' hen the) unlafull) copied and printed personal files in his computer and su#se8uentl) as,ing him to su#mit his comment hich violated his right against self-incrimination.*e asserted that he had protested the unlaful ta,ing of his computer done hile he as on leave that the files in his computer ere his personal files and those of his sister relatives friends and some associates and that he is not authori9ing their sealing cop)ing duplicating and printing as these ould violate his constitutional right to privac) and protection against selfincrimination and arrantless search and sei9ure. *e pointed out that though government propert) propert) the temporar) temporar) use and onership of the computer issued under a (emorandum of Receipt %(R& is ceded to the emplo)ee ho ma) e2ercise all attri#utes of onership including its use for personal purposes.
As to the anon)mous letter petitioner argued that it is not actiona#le as it failed to compl) ith the re8uirements of a formal complaint under the /niform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service %/RACC&.!n vie of the illegal search the filesdocuments copied from his computer ithout his consent is thus inadmissi#le as evidence #eing 'fruits of a poisonous tree.' The CSC then issued Resolution o. 151;<7 finding prima facie case against the petitioner and charging him ith Dishonest) =rave (isconduct Conduct Pre3udicial to the >est !nterest of the Service and "iolation of R.A. o. 054; %Code of Conduct and ?thical Standards for Pu#lic Officials and ?mplo)ees&. Petitioner filed an Omni#us (otion %For Reconsideration to Dismiss andor to Defer& assailing the formal charge as ithout #asis having proceeded from an illegal search hich is #e)ond the authorit) of the CSC Chairman such poer pertaining solel) to the court. The CSC denied the omni#us motion and resolved to treat the said motion as petitioners anser. Due to non-e2istent 3urisprudence the CSC thus turned to relevant rulings of the /nited States Supreme Court and cited the leading case ofOConnor v. Ortegaas authorit) for the vie that government agencies in their capacit) as emplo)ers rather than la enforcers could validl) conduct search and sei9ure in the governmental or,place ithout meeting the 'pro#a#le cause' or arrant re8uirement for search and sei9ure.Another ruling cited #) the CSC is the more recent case of/nited States v. (ar, $. Simonshich declared that the federal agenc)s computer use polic) foreclosed an) inference of reasona#le e2pectation of privac) on the part of its emplo)ees. On appeal the CA dismissed the petition for certiorari after finding no grave a#use of discretion committed #) respondents CSC officials.The CA held that: %4& petitioner as not charged on the #asis of the anon)mous letter #ut from the initiative of the CSC after a fact-finding investigation as conducted and the results thereof )ielded aprima faciecase against him@ %7& it could not #e said that in ordering the #ac,-up of files in petitioners computer and later confiscating the same Chairperson David had encroached on the authorit) of a 3udge in vie of the CSC computer polic) declaring the computers as government propert) and that emplo)ee-users thereof have no reasona#le e2pectation of privac) in an)thing the) create store send or receive on the computer s)stem@ and %;& there is nothing contemptuous in CSCs act of proceeding ith the formal investigation as there as no restraining order or in3unction issued # ) the CA. I!!(: /eter or not -etitioner i entite to vi te ri3t to -rivcy over i co4-5ter n eectronic 6ie 3overn4ent e4-oyee.
*?$D: Petitioner failed to prove that he had an actual %su#3ective& e2pectation of privac) either in his office or government-issued computer hich contained his personal files.Petitioner did not allege that he had a separate enclosed office hich he did not share ith an)one or that his office as ala)s loc,ed and not open to other emplo)ees or visitors.either did he allege that he used passords or adopted an) means to prevent other emplo)ees from accessing his computer files.On the contrar) he su#mits that #eing in the pu#lic assistance office of the CSC-RO!" he normall) ould have visitors in his office li,e friends associates and even un,non people hom he even alloed to use his computer hich to him seemed a trivial re8uest. The court made an anal)sis on the landmar, case of OConnor v. Ortega and /nited States v. Simmons la)ing the principle of #alancing the right to privac) #) an emplo)ee against searches made #) the emplo)er
ho in this case is also the government. According to the Court OConnor emphasi9ed that 'a pro#a#le cause re8uirement for searches of the t)pe at issue here ould impose intolera#le #urdens on pu#lic emplo)ers.The dela) in correcting the emplo)ee misconduct caused #) the need for pro#a#le cause rather than reasona#le suspicion ill #e translated into tangi#le and often irrepara#le damage to the agenc)s or,and ultimatel) to the pu#lic interest.' Care must therefore #e made in ensuring that a standard of reasona#leness. There must #e reasona#le grounds present #efore the e2ception ma) #e applied such as suspecting that the search ill turn up evidence that the emplo)ee is guilt) of or,-related misconduct or that the search is necessar) for a noninvestigator) or,-related purpose such as to retrieve a need ed file is. The CSC in this case had implemented a polic) that put its emplo)ees on notice that the) have no e2pectation of privac) inan)thingthe) create store send or receive on the office computers and that the CSC ma) monitor the use of the computer resources using #oth automated or #) human means.An Office (emorandum o. 41 S. 7117 'Computer /se Polic) %C/P&' e2plicitl) provided for such. This implied therefore that on-the-spot inspections ma) #e done to ensure that the computer resources ere used onl) for such legitimate #usiness purposes. The search of petitioners computer files as conducted in connection ith investigation of or,-related misconduct prompted #) an anon)mous letter-complaint addressed to Chairperson David regarding anomalies in the CSC-RO!" here the head of the (amama)an (una *indi (ama)a a division is supposedl) 'la)ering' for individuals ith pending cases in the CSC. A search #) a government emplo)er of an emplo)ees office is 3ustified at inception hen there are reasona#le grounds for suspecting that it ill turn up evidence that the emplo)ee is guilt) of or,-related misconduct. Remedial $a: This case must also #e contrasted from Anon)mous $etter-Complaint against Att). (iguel (orales Cler, of Court (etropolitan Trial Court of (anila %54 SCRA ;04& #ecause the latter involves the inspection of a personal computer from hich a government emplo)ee ma) e2pect reasona#le privac) ith his communications. Petitioners computer is government propert) and the use of hich the CSC has a#solute right to regulate and monitor. Therefore an) evidence found on petitioners computer is admissi#le against him.
