SECTION 3, ART.

III, POLLO vs CONSTANTINO-DAVID1

3. G.R. No. 181881 October 18, 2011 evidence that the employee is guilty of work-related
BRICCIO "Ricky" A. POLLO, Petitioner, vs. misconduct. Thus, in the 2004 case decided by the US
CHAIRPERSON KARINA CONSTANTINO-DAVID, Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit, it was held that where a
DIRECTOR IV RACQUEL DE GUZMAN BUENSALIDA, government agency’s computer use policy prohibited
DIRECTOR IV LYDIA A. CASTILLO, DIRECTOR III electronic messages with pornographic content and in
addition expressly provided that employees do not have
ENGELBERT ANTHONY D. UNITE AND THE CIVIL
any personal privacy rights regarding their use of the
SERVICE COMMISSION, Respondents.
agency information systems and technology, the
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
government employee had no legitimate expectation of
privacy as to the use and contents of his office computer,
Constitutional Law; Bill of Rights; Right to Privacy; The and therefore evidence found during warrantless search
right to privacy has been accorded recognition as a facet of the computer was admissible in prosecution for child
of the right protected by the guarantee against pornography. In that case, the defendant employee’s
unreasonable search and seizure under Section 2, Article computer hard drive was first remotely examined by a
III of the 1987 Constitution.—The right to privacy has computer information technician after his supervisor
been accorded recognition in this jurisdiction as a facet received complaints that he was inaccessible and had
of the right protected by the guarantee against copied and distributed non-work-related e-mail
unreasonable search and seizure under Section 2, Article messages throughout the office. When the supervisor
III of the 1987 Constitution, which provides: Sec. 2. The confirmed that defendant had used his computer to
right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, access the prohibited websites, in contravention of the
papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and express policy of the agency, his computer tower and
seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be floppy disks were taken and examined. A formal
inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest administrative investigation ensued and later search
shall issue except upon probable cause to be warrants were secured by the police department. The
determined personally by the judge after examination initial remote search of the hard drive of petitioner’s
under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the computer, as well as the subsequent warrantless
witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing searches was held as valid under the O’Connor ruling
the place to be searched and the persons or things to be that a public employer can investigate work-related
seized. misconduct so long as any search is justified at inception
and is reasonably related in scope to the circumstances
Right to Privacy; The Civil Service Commission (CSC) had that justified it in the first place.
implemented a policy that put its employees on notice
that they have no expectation of privacy in anything they Civil Procedure; Appeals; Substantial Evidence; Well-
create, store, send or receive on the office computers, settled is the rule that the findings of fact of quasi-
and that the CSC may monitor the use of the computer judicial agencies, like the Civil Service Commission (CSC),
resources using both automated or human means.—The are accorded not only respect but even finality if such
CSC in this case had implemented a policy that put its findings are supported by substantial evidence.—Well-
employees on notice that they have no expectation of settled is the rule that the findings of fact of quasi-
privacy in anything they create, store, send or receive judicial agencies, like the CSC, are accorded not only
on the office computers, and that the CSC may monitor respect but even finality if such findings are supported
the use of the computer resources using both by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is such
automated or human means. This implies that on-the- amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind
spot inspections may be done to ensure that the might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even
computer resources were used only for such legitimate if other equally reasonable minds might conceivably
business purposes. opine otherwise.

Same; A search by a government employer of an Note. —While it is doctrinal that the right against
employee’s office is justified at inception when there are unreasonable searches and seizures is a personal right
reasonable grounds for suspecting that it will turn up which may be waived expressly or impliedly, a waiver by
evidence that the employee is guilty of work-related implication cannot be presumed. (Silahis International
misconduct.—A search by a government employer of an Hotel, Inc. vs. Soluta, 482 SCRA 660 [2006])
employee’s office is justified at inception when there are ___________________________________________________________
reasonable grounds for suspecting that it will turn up
 SECTION 3, ART. III, POLLO vs CONSTANTINO-DAVID2
This case involves a search of office computer assigned As a concerned citizen of my beloved country, I would
to a government employee who was charged like to ask from you personally if it is just alright for an
administratively and eventually dismissed from the employee of your agency to be a lawyer of an accused
service. The employee’s personal files stored in the gov’t employee having a pending case in the csc. I
computer were used by the government employer as honestly think this is a violation of law and unfair to
evidence of misconduct. others and your office.

Before us is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule I have known that a person have been lawyered by one
45 which seeks to reverse and set aside the Decision1 of your attorny in the region 4 office. He is the chief of
dated October 11, 2007 and Resolution2 dated February the Mamamayan muna hindi mamaya na division. He
29, 2008 of the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA dismissed have been helping many who have pending cases in the
the petition for certiorari (CA-G.R. SP No. 98224) filed by Csc. The justice in our govt system will not be served if
petitioner Briccio "Ricky" A. Pollo to nullify the this will continue. Please investigate this anomaly
proceedings conducted by the Civil Service Commission because our perception of your clean and good office is
(CSC) which found him guilty of dishonesty, grave being tainted.
misconduct, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of
the service, and violation of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6713 Concerned Govt employee
and penalized him with dismissal.
Chairperson David immediately formed a team of four
The factual antecedents: personnel with background in information technology
(IT), and issued a memo directing them to conduct an
Petitioner is a former Supervising Personnel Specialist of investigation and specifically "to back up all the files in
the CSC Regional Office No. IV and also the Officer-in- the computers found in the Mamamayan Muna (PALD)
Charge of the Public Assistance and Liaison Division and Legal divisions."4 After some briefing, the team
(PALD) under the "Mamamayan Muna Hindi Mamaya proceeded at once to the CSC-ROIV office at Panay
Na" program of the CSC. Avenue, Quezon City. Upon their arrival thereat around
5:30 p.m., the team informed the officials of the CSC-
On January 3, 2007 at around 2:30 p.m., an unsigned ROIV, respondents Director IV Lydia Castillo (Director
letter-complaint addressed to respondent CSC Castillo) and Director III Engelbert Unite (Director Unite)
Chairperson Karina Constantino-David which was of Chairperson David’s directive.
marked "Confidential" and sent through a courier service
(LBC) from a certain "Alan San Pascual" of Bagong Silang, The backing-up of all files in the hard disk of computers
Caloocan City, was received by the Integrated Records at the PALD and Legal Services Division (LSD) was
Management Office (IRMO) at the CSC Central Office. witnessed by several employees, together with Directors
Following office practice in which documents marked Castillo and Unite who closely monitored said activity. At
"Confidential" are left unopened and instead sent to the around 6:00 p.m., Director Unite sent text messages to
addressee, the aforesaid letter was given directly to petitioner and the head of LSD, who were both out of
Chairperson David. the office at the time, informing them of the ongoing
copying of computer files in their divisions upon orders
The letter-complaint reads: of the CSC Chair. The text messages received by
petitioner read:
The Chairwoman
Civil Service Commission "Gud p.m. This is Atty. Unite FYI: Co people are going
Batasan Hills, Quezon City over the PCs of PALD and LSD per instruction of the
Chairman. If you can make it here now it would be
Dear Madam Chairwoman, better."

Belated Merry Christmas and Advance Happy New Year! "All PCs Of PALD and LSD are being backed up per
memo of the chair."
 SECTION 3, ART. III, POLLO vs CONSTANTINO-DAVID3
"CO IT people arrived just now for this purpose. We were of the CSC as the central personnel agency of the
not also informed about this. government tasked to discipline misfeasance and
malfeasance in the government service. The number of
"We can’t do anything about … it … it’s a directive from pleadings so prepared further demonstrates that such
chair." person is not merely engaged in an isolated practice but
pursues it with seeming regularity. It would also be the
"Memo of the chair was referring to an anonymous height of naivete or credulity, and certainly against
complaint"; "ill send a copy of the memo via mms"5 common human experience, to believe that the person
concerned had engaged in this customary practice
Petitioner replied also thru text message that he was without any consideration, and in fact, one of the
leaving the matter to Director Unite and that he will just retrieved files (item 13 above) appears to insinuate the
get a lawyer. Another text message received by collection of fees. That these draft pleadings were
petitioner from PALD staff also reported the presence of obtained from the computer assigned to Pollo invariably
the team from CSC main office: "Sir may mga taga C.O. raises the presumption that he was the one responsible
daw sa kuarto natin."6 At around 10:00 p.m. of the same or had a hand in their drafting or preparation since the
day, the investigating team finished their task. The next computer of origin was within his direct control and
day, all the computers in the PALD were sealed and disposition.9
secured for the purpose of preserving all the files stored
therein. Several diskettes containing the back-up files Petitioner filed his Comment, denying that he is the
sourced from the hard disk of PALD and LSD computers person referred to in the anonymous letter-complaint
were turned over to Chairperson David. The contents of which had no attachments to it, because he is not a
the diskettes were examined by the CSC’s Office for lawyer and neither is he "lawyering" for people with
Legal Affairs (OLA). It was found that most of the files in cases in the CSC. He accused CSC officials of conducting
the 17 diskettes containing files copied from the a "fishing expedition" when they unlawfully copied and
computer assigned to and being used by the petitioner, printed personal files in his computer, and subsequently
numbering about 40 to 42 documents, were draft asking him to submit his comment which violated his
pleadings or letters7 in connection with administrative right against self-incrimination. He asserted that he had
cases in the CSC and other tribunals. On the basis of this protested the unlawful taking of his computer done
finding, Chairperson David issued the Show-Cause while he was on leave, citing the letter dated January 8,
Order8 dated January 11, 2007, requiring the petitioner, 2007 in which he informed Director Castillo that the files
who had gone on extended leave, to submit his in his computer were his personal files and those of his
explanation or counter-affidavit within five days from sister, relatives, friends and some associates and that he
notice. is not authorizing their sealing, copying, duplicating and
printing as these would violate his constitutional right to
Evaluating the subject documents obtained from privacy and protection against self-incrimination and
petitioner’s personal files, Chairperson David made the warrantless search and seizure. He pointed out that
following observations: though government property, the temporary use and
ownership of the computer issued under a
Most of the foregoing files are drafts of legal pleadings Memorandum of Receipt (MR) is ceded to the employee
or documents that are related to or connected with who may exercise all attributes of ownership, including
administrative cases that may broadly be lumped as its use for personal purposes. As to the anonymous
pending either in the CSCRO No. IV, the CSC-NCR, the letter, petitioner argued that it is not actionable as it
CSC-Central Office or other tribunals. It is also of note failed to comply with the requirements of a formal
that most of these draft pleadings are for and on complaint under the Uniform Rules on Administrative
behalves of parties, who are facing charges as Cases in the Civil Service (URACC). In view of the illegal
respondents in administrative cases. This gives rise to search, the files/documents copied from his computer
the inference that the one who prepared them was without his consent is thus inadmissible as evidence,
knowingly, deliberately and willfully aiding and being "fruits of a poisonous tree."10
advancing interests adverse and inimical to the interest
 SECTION 3, ART. III, POLLO vs CONSTANTINO-DAVID4
On February 26, 2007, the CSC issued Resolution No. administrative/criminal complaint against respondents
07038211 finding prima facie case against the petitioner Directors Racquel D.G. Buensalida (Chief of Staff, Office
and charging him with Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, of the CSC Chairman) and Lydia A. Castillo (CSC-RO IV)
Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service before the Office of the Ombudsman, and a separate
and Violation of R.A. No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and complaint for disbarment against Director Buensalida.14
Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees).
Petitioner was directed to submit his answer under oath On April 17, 2007, petitioner received a notice of hearing
within five days from notice and indicate whether he from the CSC setting the formal investigation of the case
elects a formal investigation. Since the charges fall under on April 30, 2007. On April 25, 2007, he filed in the CA
Section 19 of the URACC, petitioner was likewise placed an Urgent Motion for the issuance of TRO and
under 90 days preventive suspension effective preliminary injunction.15 Since he failed to attend the
immediately upon receipt of the resolution. Petitioner pre-hearing conference scheduled on April 30, 2007, the
received a copy of Resolution No. 070382 on March 1, CSC reset the same to May 17, 2007 with warning that
2007. the failure of petitioner and/or his counsel to appear in
the said pre-hearing conference shall entitle the
Petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion (For prosecution to proceed with the formal investigation ex-
Reconsideration, to Dismiss and/or to Defer) assailing parte.16 Petitioner moved to defer or to reset the pre-
the formal charge as without basis having proceeded hearing conference, claiming that the investigation
from an illegal search which is beyond the authority of proceedings should be held in abeyance pending the
the CSC Chairman, such power pertaining solely to the resolution of his petition by the CA. The CSC denied his
court. Petitioner reiterated that he never aided any request and again scheduled the pre-hearing
people with pending cases at the CSC and alleged that conference on May 18, 2007 with similar warning on the
those files found in his computer were prepared not by consequences of petitioner and/or his counsel’s non-
him but by certain persons whom he permitted, at one appearance.17 This prompted petitioner to file another
time or another, to make use of his computer out of motion in the CA, to cite the respondents, including the
close association or friendship. Attached to the motion hearing officer, in indirect contempt.18
were the affidavit of Atty. Ponciano R. Solosa who
entrusted his own files to be kept at petitioner’s CPU and On June 12, 2007, the CSC issued Resolution No.
Atty. Eric N. Estrellado, the latter being Atty. Solosa’s 07113419 denying petitioner’s motion to set aside the
client who attested that petitioner had nothing to do denial of his motion to defer the proceedings and to
with the pleadings or bill for legal fees because in truth inhibit the designated hearing officer, Atty. Bernard G.
he owed legal fees to Atty. Solosa and not to petitioner. Jimenez. The hearing officer was directed to proceed
Petitioner contended that the case should be deferred in with the investigation proper with dispatch.
view of the prejudicial question raised in the criminal
complaint he filed before the Ombudsman against In view of the absence of petitioner and his counsel, and
Director Buensalida, whom petitioner believes had upon the motion of the prosecution, petitioner was
instigated this administrative case. He also prayed for deemed to have waived his right to the formal
the lifting of the preventive suspension imposed on him. investigation which then proceeded ex parte.
In its Resolution No. 07051912 dated March 19, 2007,
the CSC denied the omnibus motion. The CSC resolved On July 24, 2007, the CSC issued Resolution No.
to treat the said motion as petitioner’s answer. 071420,20 the dispositive part of which reads:

On March 14, 2007, petitioner filed an Urgent Petition13 WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, docketed as CA-G.R. Commission hereby finds Briccio A. Pollo, a.k.a. Ricky A.
SP No. 98224, assailing both the January 11, 2007 Show- Pollo GUILTY of Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, Conduct
Cause Order and Resolution No. 070382 dated February Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and
26, 2007 as having been issued with grave abuse of Violation of Republic Act 6713. He is meted the penalty
discretion amounting to excess or total absence of of DISMISSAL FROM THE SERVICE with all its accessory
jurisdiction. Prior to this, however, petitioner lodged an penalties, namely, disqualification to hold public office,
 SECTION 3, ART. III, POLLO vs CONSTANTINO-DAVID5
forfeiture of retirement benefits, cancellation of civil which exempts it from the warrant requirement under
service eligibilities and bar from taking future civil the Constitution. With the matter of admissibility of the
service examinations.21 evidence having been resolved, the CSC then ruled that
the totality of evidence adequately supports the charges
On the paramount issue of the legality of the search of grave misconduct, dishonesty, conduct prejudicial to
conducted on petitioner’s computer, the CSC noted the the best interest of the service and violation of R.A. No.
dearth of jurisprudence relevant to the factual milieu of 6713 against the petitioner. These grave infractions
this case where the government as employer invades the justified petitioner’s dismissal from the service with all its
private files of an employee stored in the computer accessory penalties.
assigned to him for his official use, in the course of initial
investigation of possible misconduct committed by said In his Memorandum24 filed in the CA, petitioner moved
employee and without the latter’s consent or to incorporate the above resolution dismissing him from
participation. The CSC thus turned to relevant rulings of the service in his main petition, in lieu of the filing of an
the United States Supreme Court, and cited the leading appeal via a Rule 43 petition. In a subsequent motion, he
case of O’Connor v. Ortega22 as authority for the view likewise prayed for the inclusion of Resolution No.
that government agencies, in their capacity as 07180025 which denied his motion for reconsideration.
employers, rather than law enforcers, could validly
conduct search and seizure in the governmental By Decision dated October 11, 2007, the CA dismissed
workplace without meeting the "probable cause" or the petition for certiorari after finding no grave abuse of
warrant requirement for search and seizure. Another discretion committed by respondents CSC officials. The
ruling cited by the CSC is the more recent case of United CA held that: (1) petitioner was not charged on the basis
States v. Mark L. Simons23 which declared that the of the anonymous letter but from the initiative of the
federal agency’s computer use policy foreclosed any CSC after a fact-finding investigation was conducted and
inference of reasonable expectation of privacy on the the results thereof yielded a prima facie case against
part of its employees. Though the Court therein him; (2) it could not be said that in ordering the back-up
recognized that such policy did not, at the same time, of files in petitioner’s computer and later confiscating
erode the respondent’s legitimate expectation of privacy the same, Chairperson David had encroached on the
in the office in which the computer was installed, still, the authority of a judge in view of the CSC computer policy
warrantless search of the employee’s office was upheld declaring the computers as government property and
as valid because a government employer is entitled to that employee-users thereof have no reasonable
conduct a warrantless search pursuant to an expectation of privacy in anything they create, store,
investigation of work-related misconduct provided the send, or receive on the computer system; and (3) there
search is reasonable in its inception and scope. is nothing contemptuous in CSC’s act of proceeding with
the formal investigation as there was no restraining
With the foregoing American jurisprudence as order or injunction issued by the CA.
benchmark, the CSC held that petitioner has no
reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to the His motion for reconsideration having been denied by
computer he was using in the regional office in view of the CA, petitioner brought this appeal arguing that –
the CSC computer use policy which unequivocally
declared that a CSC employee cannot assert any privacy I THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRIEVOUSLY
right to a computer assigned to him. Even assuming that ERRED AND COMMITTED SERIOUS IRREGULARITY AND
there was no such administrative policy, the CSC was of BLATANT ERRORS IN LAW AMOUNTING TO GRAVE
the view that the search of petitioner’s computer ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN IT RULED THAT
successfully passed the test of reasonableness for ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT IS ACTIONABLE UNDER E.O.
warrantless searches in the workplace as enunciated in 292 WHEN IN TRUTH AND IN FACT THE CONTRARY IS
the aforecited authorities. The CSC stressed that it EXPLICITLY PROVIDED UNDER 2nd PARAGRAPH OF
pursued the search in its capacity as government SECTION 8 OF CSC RESOLUTION NO. 99-1936, WHICH
employer and that it was undertaken in connection with IS AN [AMENDMENT] TO THE ORIGINAL RULES PER CSC
an investigation involving work-related misconduct, RESOLUTION NO. 94-0521;
 SECTION 3, ART. III, POLLO vs CONSTANTINO-DAVID6
II THE HONORABLE COURT GRIEVOUSLY ERRED AND The right to privacy has been accorded recognition in
COMMITTED PALPABLE ERRORS IN LAW AMOUNTING this jurisdiction as a facet of the right protected by the
TO GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN IT RULED guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure
THAT PETITIONER CANNOT INVOKE HIS RIGHT TO under Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution,27
PRIVACY, TO UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE, which provides:
AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION, BY VIRTUE OF OFFICE
MEMORANDUM NO. 10 S. 2002, A MERE INTERNAL Sec. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their
MEMORANDUM SIGNED SOLELY AND EXCLUSIVELY BY persons, houses, papers, and effects against
RESPONDENT DAVID AND NOT BY THE COLLEGIAL unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature
COMMISSION CONSIDERING THAT POLICY MATTERS and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search
INVOLVING SUB[S]TANTIAL RIGHTS CANNOT BE warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon
COVERED BY AN OFFICE MEMORANDUM WHICH IS probable cause to be determined personally by the
LIMITED TO PROCEDURAL AND ROUTINARY judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the
INSTRUCTION; complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and
particularly describing the place to be searched and the
III THE HONORABLE COURT GRAVELY ERRED AND persons or things to be seized.
COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN IT
RULED THAT MEMO SEARCH DATED JANUARY 3, 2007 The constitutional guarantee is not a prohibition of all
AND THE TAKING OF DOCUMENTS IN THE EVENING searches and seizures but only of "unreasonable"
THEREOF FROM 7:00 TO 10:00 P.M. IS NOT GRAVE searches and seizures.28 But to fully understand this
ABUSE OF DISCRETION LIMITING THE DEFINITION [OF] concept and application for the purpose of resolving the
GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION TO ONE INVOLVING issue at hand, it is essential that we examine the doctrine
AND TAINTED WITH PERSONAL HOSTILITY. IT LIKEWISE in the light of pronouncements in another jurisdiction.
ERRED IN HOLDING THAT DATA STORED IN THE As the Court declared in People v. Marti29 :
GOVERNMENT COMPUTERS ARE GOVERNMENT
PROPERTIES INCLUDING THE PERSONAL FILES WHEN Our present constitutional provision on the guarantee
THE CONTRARY IS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 14 OF against unreasonable search and seizure had its origin in
OM. 10 s. 2002. AND GRIEVOUSLY ERRED STILL WHEN the 1935 Charter which, worded as follows:
IT RULED THAT RESPONDENT DAVID BY VIRTUE OF O.M.
10 DID NOT ENCROACH ON THE DUTIES AND "The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
FUNCTIONS OF A JUDGE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE III, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable
SECTION 2 OF THE 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION; searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no
warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, to be
IV THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO determined by the judge after examination under oath
CONSIDER ALL OTHER NEW ARGUMENTS, ADDITIONAL or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he
EVIDENCE HEREUNTO SUBMITTED AS WELL AS ITS may produce, and particularly describing the place to be
FAILURE TO EVALUATE AND TAKE ACTION ON THE 2 searched, and the persons or things to be seized." (Sec.
MOTIONS TO ADMIT AND INCORPORATE CSC 1[3], Article III)
RESOLUTION NOS. 07-1420 DATED JULY 24, 2007 AND
CSC RESOLUTION 07-1800 DATED SEPTEMBER 10, 2007. was in turn derived almost verbatim from the Fourth
IT DID NOT RULE LIKEWISE ON THE FOUR URGENT Amendment to the United States Constitution. As such,
MOTION TO RESOLVE ANCILLARY PRAYER FOR TRO.26 the Court may turn to the pronouncements of the United
States Federal Supreme Court and State Appellate
Squarely raised by the petitioner is the legality of the Courts which are considered doctrinal in this
search conducted on his office computer and the jurisdiction.30
copying of his personal files without his knowledge and
consent, alleged as a transgression on his constitutional In the 1967 case of Katz v. United States,31 the US
right to privacy. Supreme Court held that the act of FBI agents in
electronically recording a conversation made by
 SECTION 3, ART. III, POLLO vs CONSTANTINO-DAVID7
petitioner in an enclosed public telephone booth misconduct, should be judged by the standard of
violated his right to privacy and constituted a "search reasonableness under all the circumstances."36
and seizure". Because the petitioner had a reasonable
expectation of privacy in using the enclosed booth to On the matter of government employees’ reasonable
make a personal telephone call, the protection of the expectations of privacy in their workplace, O’Connor
Fourth Amendment extends to such area. In the teaches:
concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Harlan, it was further
noted that the existence of privacy right under prior x x x Public employees’ expectations of privacy in their
decisions involved a two-fold requirement: first, that a offices, desks, and file cabinets, like similar expectations
person has exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of employees in the private sector, may be reduced by
of privacy; and second, that the expectation be one that virtue of actual office practices and procedures, or by
society is prepared to recognize as reasonable legitimate regulation. x x x The employee’s expectation
(objective).32 of privacy must be assessed in the context of the
employment relation. An office is seldom a private
In Mancusi v. DeForte33 which addressed the reasonable enclave free from entry by supervisors, other employees,
expectations of private employees in the workplace, the and business and personal invitees. Instead, in many
US Supreme Court held that a union employee had cases offices are continually entered by fellow
Fourth Amendment rights with regard to an office at employees and other visitors during the workday for
union headquarters that he shared with other union conferences, consultations, and other work-related
officials, even as the latter or their guests could enter the visits. Simply put, it is the nature of government offices
office. The Court thus "recognized that employees may that others – such as fellow employees, supervisors,
have a reasonable expectation of privacy against consensual visitors, and the general public – may have
intrusions by police." frequent access to an individual’s office. We agree with
JUSTICE SCALIA that "[c]onstitutional protection against
That the Fourth Amendment equally applies to a unreasonable searches by the government does not
government workplace was addressed in the 1987 case disappear merely because the government has the right
of O’Connor v. Ortega34 where a physician, Dr. Magno to make reasonable intrusions in its capacity as
Ortega, who was employed by a state hospital, claimed employer," x x x but some government offices may be so
a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights when open to fellow employees or the public that no
hospital officials investigating charges of expectation of privacy is reasonable. x x x Given the great
mismanagement of the psychiatric residency program, variety of work environments in the public sector, the
sexual harassment of female hospital employees and question of whether an employee has a reasonable
other irregularities involving his private patients under expectation of privacy must be addressed on a case-by-
the state medical aid program, searched his office and case basis.37 (Citations omitted; emphasis supplied.)
seized personal items from his desk and filing cabinets.
In that case, the Court categorically declared that On the basis of the established rule in previous cases,
"[i]ndividuals do not lose Fourth Amendment rights the US Supreme Court declared that Dr. Ortega’s Fourth
merely because they work for the government instead of Amendment rights are implicated only if the conduct of
a private employer."35 A plurality of four Justices the hospital officials infringed "an expectation of privacy
concurred that the correct analysis has two steps: first, that society is prepared to consider as reasonable."
because "some government offices may be so open to Given the undisputed evidence that respondent Dr.
fellow employees or the public that no expectation of Ortega did not share his desk or file cabinets with any
privacy is reasonable", a court must consider "[t]he other employees, kept personal correspondence and
operational realities of the workplace" in order to other private items in his own office while those work-
determine whether an employee’s Fourth Amendment related files (on physicians in residency training) were
rights are implicated; and next, where an employee has stored outside his office, and there being no evidence
a legitimate privacy expectation, an employer’s intrusion that the hospital had established any reasonable
on that expectation "for noninvestigatory, work-related regulation or policy discouraging employees from
purposes, as well as for investigations of work-related storing personal papers and effects in their desks or file
 SECTION 3, ART. III, POLLO vs CONSTANTINO-DAVID8
cabinets (although the absence of such a policy does not government offices could not function if every
create any expectation of privacy where it would not employment decision became a constitutional matter." x
otherwise exist), the Court concluded that Dr. Ortega has xxxxxx
a reasonable expectation of privacy at least in his desk
and file cabinets.38 The governmental interest justifying work-related
intrusions by public employers is the efficient and proper
Proceeding to the next inquiry as to whether the search operation of the workplace. Government agencies
conducted by hospital officials was reasonable, the provide myriad services to the public, and the work of
O’Connor plurality decision discussed the following these agencies would suffer if employers were required
principles: to have probable cause before they entered an
employee’s desk for the purpose of finding a file or piece
Having determined that Dr. Ortega had a reasonable of office correspondence. Indeed, it is difficult to give the
expectation of privacy in his office, the Court of Appeals concept of probable cause, rooted as it is in the criminal
simply concluded without discussion that the investigatory context, much meaning when the purpose
"search…was not a reasonable search under the fourth of a search is to retrieve a file for work-related reasons.
amendment." x x x "[t]o hold that the Fourth Similarly, the concept of probable cause has little
Amendment applies to searches conducted by [public meaning for a routine inventory conducted by public
employers] is only to begin the inquiry into the employers for the purpose of securing state property. x
standards governing such searches…[W]hat is x x To ensure the efficient and proper operation of the
reasonable depends on the context within which a agency, therefore, public employers must be given wide
search takes place. x x x Thus, we must determine the latitude to enter employee offices for work-related,
appropriate standard of reasonableness applicable to noninvestigatory reasons.
the search. A determination of the standard of
reasonableness applicable to a particular class of We come to a similar conclusion for searches conducted
searches requires "balanc[ing] the nature and quality of pursuant to an investigation of work-related employee
the intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment misconduct. Even when employers conduct an
interests against the importance of the governmental investigation, they have an interest substantially
interests alleged to justify the intrusion." x x x In the case different from "the normal need for law enforcement." x
of searches conducted by a public employer, we must x x Public employers have an interest in ensuring that
balance the invasion of the employees’ legitimate their agencies operate in an effective and efficient
expectations of privacy against the government’s need manner, and the work of these agencies inevitably
for supervision, control, and the efficient operation of suffers from the inefficiency, incompetence,
the workplace. x x x x mismanagement, or other work-related misfeasance of
its employees. Indeed, in many cases, public employees
In our view, requiring an employer to obtain a warrant are entrusted with tremendous responsibility, and the
whenever the employer wished to enter an employee’s consequences of their misconduct or incompetence to
office, desk, or file cabinets for a work-related purpose both the agency and the public interest can be severe.
would seriously disrupt the routine conduct of business In contrast to law enforcement officials, therefore, public
and would be unduly burdensome. Imposing unwieldy employers are not enforcers of the criminal law; instead,
warrant procedures in such cases upon supervisors, who public employers have a direct and overriding interest in
would otherwise have no reason to be familiar with such ensuring that the work of the agency is conducted in a
procedures, is simply unreasonable. In contrast to other proper and efficient manner. In our view, therefore, a
circumstances in which we have required warrants, probable cause requirement for searches of the type at
supervisors in offices such as at the Hospital are hardly issue here would impose intolerable burdens on public
in the business of investigating the violation of criminal employers. The delay in correcting the employee
laws. Rather, work-related searches are merely incident misconduct caused by the need for probable cause
to the primary business of the agency. Under these rather than reasonable suspicion will be translated into
circumstances, the imposition of a warrant requirement tangible and often irreparable damage to the agency’s
would conflict with the "common-sense realization that work, and ultimately to the public interest. x x x x x x x
 SECTION 3, ART. III, POLLO vs CONSTANTINO-DAVID9
In sum, we conclude that the "special needs, beyond the In O’Connor the Court recognized that "special needs"
normal need for law enforcement make the…probable- authorize warrantless searches involving public
cause requirement impracticable," x x x for legitimate, employees for work-related reasons. The Court thus laid
work-related noninvestigatory intrusions as well as down a balancing test under which government interests
investigations of work-related misconduct. A standard of are weighed against the employee’s reasonable
reasonableness will neither unduly burden the efforts of expectation of privacy. This reasonableness test
government employers to ensure the efficient and implicates neither probable cause nor the warrant
proper operation of the workplace, nor authorize requirement, which are related to law enforcement.40
arbitrary intrusions upon the privacy of public
employees. We hold, therefore, that public employer O’Connor was applied in subsequent cases raising issues
intrusions on the constitutionally protected privacy on employees’ privacy rights in the workplace. One of
interests of government employees for these cases involved a government employer’s search of
noninvestigatory, work-related purposes, as well as for an office computer, United States v. Mark L. Simons41
investigations of work-related misconduct, should be where the defendant Simons, an employee of a division
judged by the standard of reasonableness under all the of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), was convicted
circumstances. Under this reasonableness standard, of receiving and possessing materials containing child
both the inception and the scope of the intrusion must pornography. Simons was provided with an office which
be reasonable: he did not share with anyone, and a computer with
Internet access. The agency had instituted a policy on
"Determining the reasonableness of any search involves computer use stating that employees were to use the
a twofold inquiry: first, one must consider ‘whether Internet for official government business only and that
the…action was justified at its inception,’ x x x ; second, accessing unlawful material was specifically prohibited.
one must determine whether the search as actually The policy also stated that users shall understand that
conducted ‘was reasonably related in scope to the the agency will periodically audit, inspect, and/or
circumstances which justified the interference in the first monitor the user’s Internet access as deemed
place,’" x x x appropriate. CIA agents instructed its contractor for the
management of the agency’s computer network, upon
Ordinarily, a search of an employee’s office by a initial discovery of prohibited internet activity
supervisor will be "justified at its inception" when there originating from Simons’ computer, to conduct a remote
are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search monitoring and examination of Simons’ computer. After
will turn up evidence that the employee is guilty of work- confirming that Simons had indeed downloaded
related misconduct, or that the search is necessary for a pictures that were pornographic in nature, all the files on
noninvestigatory work-related purpose such as to the hard drive of Simon’s computer were copied from a
retrieve a needed file. x x x The search will be permissible remote work station. Days later, the contractor’s
in its scope when "the measures adopted are reasonably representative finally entered Simon’s office, removed
related to the objectives of the search and not the original hard drive on Simon’s computer, replaced it
excessively intrusive in light of …the nature of the with a copy, and gave the original to the agency security
[misconduct]." x x x39 (Citations omitted; emphasis officer. Thereafter, the agency secured warrants and
supplied.) searched Simons’ office in the evening when Simons was
not around. The search team copied the contents of
Since the District Court granted summary judgment Simons’ computer; computer diskettes found in Simons’
without a hearing on the factual dispute as to the desk drawer; computer files stored on the zip drive or on
character of the search and neither was there any finding zip drive diskettes; videotapes; and various documents,
made as to the scope of the search that was undertaken, including personal correspondence. At his trial, Simons
the case was remanded to said court for the moved to suppress these evidence, arguing that the
determination of the justification for the search and searches of his office and computer violated his Fourth
seizure, and evaluation of the reasonableness of both Amendment rights. After a hearing, the district court
the inception of the search and its scope. denied the motion and Simons was found guilty as
charged.
 SECTION 3, ART. III, POLLO vs CONSTANTINO-DAVID10
Simons appealed his convictions. The US Supreme Court appropriate." x x x This policy placed employees on
ruled that the searches of Simons’ computer and office notice that they could not reasonably expect that their
did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights and the first Internet activity would be private. Therefore, regardless
search warrant was valid. It held that the search remains of whether Simons subjectively believed that the files he
valid under the O’Connor exception to the warrant transferred from the Internet were private, such a belief
requirement because evidence of the crime was was not objectively reasonable after FBIS notified him
discovered in the course of an otherwise proper that it would be overseeing his Internet use. x x x
administrative inspection. Simons’ violation of the Accordingly, FBIS’ actions in remotely searching and
agency’s Internet policy happened also to be a violation seizing the computer files Simons downloaded from the
of criminal law; this does not mean that said employer Internet did not violate the Fourth Amendment. x x x x
lost the capacity and interests of an employer. The
warrantless entry into Simons’ office was reasonable The burden is on Simons to prove that he had a
under the Fourth Amendment standard announced in legitimate expectation of privacy in his office. x x x Here,
O’Connor because at the inception of the search, the Simons has shown that he had an office that he did not
employer had "reasonable grounds for suspecting" that share. As noted above, the operational realities of
the hard drive would yield evidence of misconduct, as Simons’ workplace may have diminished his legitimate
the employer was already aware that Simons had privacy expectations. However, there is no evidence in
misused his Internet access to download over a the record of any workplace practices, procedures, or
thousand pornographic images. The retrieval of the hard regulations that had such an effect. We therefore
drive was reasonably related to the objective of the conclude that, on this record, Simons possessed a
search, and the search was not excessively intrusive. legitimate expectation of privacy in his office. x x x x
Thus, while Simons had a reasonable expectation of
privacy in his office, he did not have such legitimate In the final analysis, this case involves an employee’s
expectation of privacy with regard to the files in his supervisor entering the employee’s government office
computer. and retrieving a piece of government equipment in
which the employee had absolutely no expectation of
x x x To establish a violation of his rights under the privacy – equipment that the employer knew contained
Fourth Amendment, Simons must first prove that he had evidence of crimes committed by the employee in the
a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place searched employee’s office. This situation may be contrasted with
or the item seized. x x x And, in order to prove a one in which the criminal acts of a government
legitimate expectation of privacy, Simons must show employee were unrelated to his employment. Here,
that his subjective expectation of privacy is one that there was a conjunction of the conduct that violated the
society is prepared to accept as objectively reasonable. employer’s policy and the conduct that violated the
xxxxxxx criminal law. We consider that FBIS’ intrusion into
Simons’ office to retrieve the hard drive is one in which
x x x We conclude that the remote searches of Simons’ a reasonable employer might engage. x x x42 (Citations
computer did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights omitted; emphasis supplied.)
because, in light of the Internet policy, Simons lacked a
legitimate expectation of privacy in the files downloaded This Court, in Social Justice Society (SJS) v. Dangerous
from the Internet. Additionally, we conclude that Drugs Board43 which involved the constitutionality of a
Simons’ Fourth Amendment rights were not violated by provision in R.A. No. 9165 requiring mandatory drug
FBIS’ retrieval of Simons’ hard drive from his office. testing of candidates for public office, students of
secondary and tertiary schools, officers and employees
Simons did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy of public and private offices, and persons charged
with regard to the record or fruits of his Internet use in before the prosecutor’s office with certain offenses, have
light of the FBIS Internet policy. The policy clearly stated also recognized the fact that there may be such
that FBIS would "audit, inspect, and/or monitor" legitimate intrusion of privacy in the workplace.
employees’ use of the Internet, including all file transfers,
all websites visited, and all e-mail messages, "as deemed
 SECTION 3, ART. III, POLLO vs CONSTANTINO-DAVID11
The first factor to consider in the matter of adopted any means to prevent other employees from
reasonableness is the nature of the privacy interest upon accessing his computer files. On the contrary, he submits
which the drug testing, which effects a search within the that being in the public assistance office of the CSC-
meaning of Sec. 2, Art. III of the Constitution, intrudes. In ROIV, he normally would have visitors in his office like
this case, the office or workplace serves as the backdrop friends, associates and even unknown people, whom he
for the analysis of the privacy expectation of the even allowed to use his computer which to him seemed
employees and the reasonableness of drug testing a trivial request. He described his office as "full of people,
requirement. The employees’ privacy interest in an office his friends, unknown people" and that in the past 22
is to a large extent circumscribed by the company’s work years he had been discharging his functions at the PALD,
policies, the collective bargaining agreement, if any, he is "personally assisting incoming clients, receiving
entered into by management and the bargaining unit, documents, drafting cases on appeals, in charge of
and the inherent right of the employer to maintain accomplishment report, Mamamayan Muna Program,
discipline and efficiency in the workplace. Their privacy Public Sector Unionism, Correction of name,
expectation in a regulated office environment is, in fine, accreditation of service, and hardly had anytime for
reduced; and a degree of impingement upon such himself alone, that in fact he stays in the office as a
privacy has been upheld. (Emphasis supplied.) paying customer."46 Under this scenario, it can hardly
be deduced that petitioner had such expectation of
Applying the analysis and principles announced in privacy that society would recognize as reasonable.
O’Connor and Simons to the case at bar, we now address
the following questions: (1) Did petitioner have a Moreover, even assuming arguendo, in the absence of
reasonable expectation of privacy in his office and allegation or proof of the aforementioned factual
computer files?; and (2) Was the search authorized by circumstances, that petitioner had at least a subjective
the CSC Chair, the copying of the contents of the hard expectation of privacy in his computer as he claims, such
drive on petitioner’s computer reasonable in its is negated by the presence of policy regulating the use
inception and scope? of office computers, as in Simons.

In this inquiry, the relevant surrounding circumstances Office Memorandum No. 10, S. 2002 "Computer Use
to consider include "(1) the employee’s relationship to Policy (CUP)" explicitly provides:
the item seized; (2) whether the item was in the
immediate control of the employee when it was seized; POLICY
and (3) whether the employee took actions to maintain
his privacy in the item." These factors are relevant to 1. The Computer Resources are the property of the Civil
both the subjective and objective prongs of the Service Commission and may be used only for legitimate
reasonableness inquiry, and we consider the two business purposes.
questions together.44 Thus, where the employee used a
password on his computer, did not share his office with 2. Users shall be permitted access to Computer
co-workers and kept the same locked, he had a Resources to assist them in the performance of their
legitimate expectation of privacy and any search of that respective jobs.
space and items located therein must comply with the
Fourth Amendment.45 3. Use of the Computer Resources is a privilege that may
be revoked at any given time. x x x x
We answer the first in the negative. Petitioner failed to
prove that he had an actual (subjective) expectation of No Expectation of Privacy
privacy either in his office or government-issued
computer which contained his personal files. Petitioner 4. No expectation of privacy. Users except the Members
did not allege that he had a separate enclosed office of the Commission shall not have an expectation of
which he did not share with anyone, or that his office privacy in anything they create, store, send, or receive on
was always locked and not open to other employees or the computer system.
visitors. Neither did he allege that he used passwords or
 SECTION 3, ART. III, POLLO vs CONSTANTINO-DAVID12
The Head of the Office for Recruitment, Examination and computer resources were used only for such legitimate
Placement shall select and assign Users to handle the business purposes.
confidential examination data and processes.
5. Waiver of privacy rights. Users expressly waive any One of the factors stated in O’Connor which are relevant
right to privacy in anything they create, store, send, or in determining whether an employee’s expectation of
receive on the computer through the Internet or any privacy in the workplace is reasonable is the existence of
other computer network. Users understand that the CSC a workplace privacy policy.48 In one case, the US Court
may use human or automated means to monitor the use of Appeals Eighth Circuit held that a state university
of its Computer Resources. employee has not shown that he had a reasonable
expectation of privacy in his computer files where the
6. Non-exclusivity of Computer Resources. A computer university’s computer policy, the computer user is
resource is not a personal property or for the exclusive informed not to expect privacy if the university has a
use of a User to whom a memorandum of receipt (MR) legitimate reason to conduct a search. The user is
has been issued. It can be shared or operated by other specifically told that computer files, including e-mail, can
users. However, he is accountable therefor and must be searched when the university is responding to a
insure its care and maintenance. x x x x discovery request in the course of litigation. Petitioner
employee thus cannot claim a violation of Fourth
Passwords Amendment rights when university officials conducted a
warrantless search of his computer for work-related
12. Responsibility for passwords. Users shall be materials.49
responsible for safeguarding their passwords for access
to the computer system. Individual passwords shall not As to the second point of inquiry on the reasonableness
be printed, stored online, or given to others. Users shall of the search conducted on petitioner’s computer, we
be responsible for all transactions made using their answer in the affirmative.
passwords. No User may access the computer system
with another User’s password or account. The search of petitioner’s computer files was conducted
in connection with investigation of work-related
13. Passwords do not imply privacy. Use of passwords to misconduct prompted by an anonymous letter-
gain access to the computer system or to encode complaint addressed to Chairperson David regarding
particular files or messages does not imply that Users anomalies in the CSC-ROIV where the head of the
have an expectation of privacy in the material they create Mamamayan Muna Hindi Mamaya Na division is
or receive on the computer system. The Civil Service supposedly "lawyering" for individuals with pending
Commission has global passwords that permit access to cases in the CSC. Chairperson David stated in her sworn
all materials stored on its networked computer system affidavit:
regardless of whether those materials have been
encoded with a particular User’s password. Only 8. That prior to this, as early as 2006, the undersigned
members of the Commission shall authorize the has received several text messages from unknown
application of the said global passwords. sources adverting to certain anomalies in Civil Service
Commission Regional Office IV (CSCRO IV) such as, staff
x x x x47 (Emphasis supplied.) working in another government agency, "selling" cases
and aiding parties with pending cases, all done during
The CSC in this case had implemented a policy that put office hours and involved the use of government
its employees on notice that they have no expectation properties;
of privacy in anything they create, store, send or receive
on the office computers, and that the CSC may monitor 9. That said text messages were not investigated for lack
the use of the computer resources using both of any verifiable leads and details sufficient to warrant
automated or human means. This implies that on-the- an investigation;
spot inspections may be done to ensure that the
 SECTION 3, ART. III, POLLO vs CONSTANTINO-DAVID13
10. That the anonymous letter provided the lead and the reasonableness of its actions, consistent as it were
details as it pinpointed the persons and divisions with the guidelines established by O’Connor:
involved in the alleged irregularities happening in
CSCRO IV; Even conceding for a moment that there is no such
11. That in view of the seriousness of the allegations of administrative policy, there is no doubt in the mind of
irregularities happening in CSCRO IV and its effect on the Commission that the search of Pollo’s computer has
the integrity of the Commission, I decided to form a successfully passed the test of reasonableness for
team of Central Office staff to back up the files in the warrantless searches in the workplace as enunciated in
computers of the Public Assistance and Liaison Division the above-discussed American authorities. It bears
(PALD) and Legal Division; x x x x50 emphasis that the Commission pursued the search in its
capacity as a government employer and that it was
A search by a government employer of an employee’s undertaken in connection with an investigation involving
office is justified at inception when there are reasonable a work-related misconduct, one of the circumstances
grounds for suspecting that it will turn up evidence that exempted from the warrant requirement. At the
the employee is guilty of work-related misconduct.51 inception of the search, a complaint was received
Thus, in the 2004 case decided by the US Court of recounting that a certain division chief in the CSCRO No.
Appeals Eighth Circuit, it was held that where a IV was "lawyering" for parties having pending cases with
government agency’s computer use policy prohibited the said regional office or in the Commission. The nature
electronic messages with pornographic content and in of the imputation was serious, as it was grievously
addition expressly provided that employees do not have disturbing. If, indeed, a CSC employee was found to be
any personal privacy rights regarding their use of the furtively engaged in the practice of "lawyering" for
agency information systems and technology, the parties with pending cases before the Commission
government employee had no legitimate expectation of would be a highly repugnant scenario, then such a case
privacy as to the use and contents of his office computer, would have shattering repercussions. It would
and therefore evidence found during warrantless search undeniably cast clouds of doubt upon the institutional
of the computer was admissible in prosecution for child integrity of the Commission as a quasi-judicial agency,
pornography. In that case, the defendant employee’s and in the process, render it less effective in fulfilling its
computer hard drive was first remotely examined by a mandate as an impartial and objective dispenser of
computer information technician after his supervisor administrative justice. It is settled that a court or an
received complaints that he was inaccessible and had administrative tribunal must not only be actually
copied and distributed non-work-related e-mail impartial but must be seen to be so, otherwise the
messages throughout the office. When the supervisor general public would not have any trust and confidence
confirmed that defendant had used his computer to in it.
access the prohibited websites, in contravention of the
express policy of the agency, his computer tower and Considering the damaging nature of the accusation, the
floppy disks were taken and examined. A formal Commission had to act fast, if only to arrest or limit any
administrative investigation ensued and later search possible adverse consequence or fall-out. Thus, on the
warrants were secured by the police department. The same date that the complaint was received, a search was
initial remote search of the hard drive of petitioner’s forthwith conducted involving the computer resources
computer, as well as the subsequent warrantless in the concerned regional office. That it was the
searches was held as valid under the O’Connor ruling computers that were subjected to the search was
that a public employer can investigate work-related justified since these furnished the easiest means for an
misconduct so long as any search is justified at inception employee to encode and store documents. Indeed, the
and is reasonably related in scope to the circumstances computers would be a likely starting point in ferreting
that justified it in the first place.52 out incriminating evidence. Concomitantly, the
ephemeral nature of computer files, that is, they could
Under the facts obtaining, the search conducted on easily be destroyed at a click of a button, necessitated
petitioner’s computer was justified at its inception and drastic and immediate action. Pointedly, to impose the
scope. We quote with approval the CSC’s discussion on need to comply with the probable cause requirement
 SECTION 3, ART. III, POLLO vs CONSTANTINO-DAVID14
would invariably defeat the purpose of the wok-related personal cases, using office supplies, equipment and
investigation. utilities. The OCA conducted a spot investigation aided
by NBI agents. The team was able to access Atty.
Worthy to mention, too, is the fact that the Commission Morales’ personal computer and print two documents
effected the warrantless search in an open and stored in its hard drive, which turned out to be two
transparent manner. Officials and some employees of pleadings, one filed in the CA and another in the RTC of
the regional office, who happened to be in the vicinity, Manila, both in the name of another lawyer. Atty.
were on hand to observe the process until its Morales’ computer was seized and taken in custody of
completion. In addition, the respondent himself was duly the OCA but was later ordered released on his motion,
notified, through text messaging, of the search and the but with order to the MISO to first retrieve the files
concomitant retrieval of files from his computer. stored therein. The OCA disagreed with the report of the
Investigating Judge that there was no evidence to
All in all, the Commission is convinced that the support the charge against Atty. Morales as no one from
warrantless search done on computer assigned to Pollo the OCC personnel who were interviewed would give a
was not, in any way, vitiated with unconstitutionality. It categorical and positive statement affirming the charges
was a reasonable exercise of the managerial prerogative against Atty. Morales, along with other court personnel
of the Commission as an employer aimed at ensuring its also charged in the same case. The OCA recommended
operational effectiveness and efficiency by going after that Atty. Morales should be found guilty of gross
the work-related misfeasance of its employees. misconduct. The Court En Banc held that while Atty.
Consequently, the evidence derived from the Morales may have fallen short of the exacting standards
questioned search are deemed admissible.53 required of every court employee, the Court cannot use
the evidence obtained from his personal computer
Petitioner’s claim of violation of his constitutional right against him for it violated his constitutional right against
to privacy must necessarily fail. His other argument unreasonable searches and seizures. The Court found no
invoking the privacy of communication and evidence to support the claim of OCA that they were
correspondence under Section 3(1), Article III of the 1987 able to obtain the subject pleadings with the consent of
Constitution is also untenable considering the Atty. Morales, as in fact the latter immediately filed an
recognition accorded to certain legitimate intrusions administrative case against the persons who conducted
into the privacy of employees in the government the spot investigation, questioning the validity of the
workplace under the aforecited authorities. We likewise investigation and specifically invoking his constitutional
find no merit in his contention that O’Connor and right against unreasonable search and seizure. And as
Simons are not relevant because the present case does there is no other evidence, apart from the pleadings,
not involve a criminal offense like child pornography. As retrieved from the unduly confiscated personal
already mentioned, the search of petitioner’s computer computer of Atty. Morales, to hold him administratively
was justified there being reasonable ground for liable, the Court had no choice but to dismiss the
suspecting that the files stored therein would yield charges against him for insufficiency of evidence.
incriminating evidence relevant to the investigation
being conducted by CSC as government employer of The above case is to be distinguished from the case at
such misconduct subject of the anonymous complaint. bar because, unlike the former which involved a personal
This situation clearly falls under the exception to the computer of a court employee, the computer from which
warrantless requirement in administrative searches the personal files of herein petitioner were retrieved is a
defined in O’Connor. government-issued computer, hence government
property the use of which the CSC has absolute right to
The Court is not unaware of our decision in Anonymous regulate and monitor. Such relationship of the petitioner
Letter-Complaint against Atty. Miguel Morales, Clerk of with the item seized (office computer) and other relevant
Court, Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila54 involving a factors and circumstances under American Fourth
branch clerk (Atty. Morales) who was investigated on the Amendment jurisprudence, notably the existence of CSC
basis of an anonymous letter alleging that he was MO 10, S. 2007 on Computer Use Policy, failed to
consuming his working hours filing and attending to
 SECTION 3, ART. III, POLLO vs CONSTANTINO-DAVID15
establish that petitioner had a reasonable expectation of antagonistic to the Commission. Worse, the appearance
privacy in the office computer assigned to him. in one of the retrieved documents the phrase, "Eric N.
Estr[e]llado, Epal kulang ang bayad mo," lends
Having determined that the personal files copied from plausibility to an inference that the preparation or
the office computer of petitioner are admissible in the drafting of the legal pleadings was pursued with less
administrative case against him, we now proceed to the than a laudable motivation. Whoever was responsible for
issue of whether the CSC was correct in finding the these documents was simply doing the same for the
petitioner guilty of the charges and dismissing him from money – a "legal mercenary" selling or purveying his
the service. expertise to the highest bidder, so to speak.

Well-settled is the rule that the findings of fact of quasi- Inevitably, the fact that these documents were retrieved
judicial agencies, like the CSC, are accorded not only from the computer of Pollo raises the presumption that
respect but even finality if such findings are supported he was the author thereof. This is because he had a
by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is such control of the said computer. More significantly, one of
amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind the witnesses, Margarita Reyes, categorically testified
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even seeing a written copy of one of the pleadings found in
if other equally reasonable minds might conceivably the case records lying on the table of the respondent.
opine otherwise.55 This was the Petition for Review in the case of Estrellado
addressed to the Court of Appeals. The said
The CSC based its findings on evidence consisting of a circumstances indubitably demonstrate that Pollo was
substantial number of drafts of legal pleadings and secretly undermining the interest of the Commission, his
documents stored in his office computer, as well as the very own employer.
sworn affidavits and testimonies of the witnesses it
presented during the formal investigation. According to To deflect any culpability, Pollo would, however, want
the CSC, these documents were confirmed to be similar the Commission to believe that the documents were the
or exactly the same content-wise with those on the case personal files of some of his friends, including one
records of some cases pending either with CSCRO No. Attorney Ponciano Solosa, who incidentally served as his
IV, CSC-NCR or the Commission Proper. There were also counsel of record during the formal investigation of this
substantially similar copies of those pleadings filed with case. In fact, Atty. Solosa himself executed a sworn
the CA and duly furnished the Commission. Further, the affidavit to this effect. Unfortunately, this contention of
CSC found the explanation given by petitioner, to the the respondent was directly rebutted by the prosecution
effect that those files retrieved from his computer hard witness, Reyes, who testified that during her entire stay
drive actually belonged to his lawyer friends Estrellado in the PALD, she never saw Atty. Solosa using the
and Solosa whom he allowed the use of his computer for computer assigned to the respondent. Reyes more
drafting their pleadings in the cases they handle, as particularly stated that she worked in close proximity
implausible and doubtful under the circumstances. We with Pollo and would have known if Atty. Solosa, whom
hold that the CSC’s factual finding regarding the she personally knows, was using the computer in
authorship of the subject pleadings and misuse of the question. Further, Atty. Solosa himself was never
office computer is well-supported by the evidence on presented during the formal investigation to confirm his
record, thus: sworn statement such that the same constitutes self-
serving evidence unworthy of weight and credence. The
It is also striking to note that some of these documents same is true with the other supporting affidavits, which
were in the nature of pleadings responding to the Pollo submitted.
orders, decisions or resolutions of these offices or
directly in opposition to them such as a petition for At any rate, even admitting for a moment the said
certiorari or a motion for reconsideration of CSC contention of the respondent, it evinces the fact that he
Resolution. This indicates that the author thereof was unlawfully authorizing private persons to use the
knowingly and willingly participated in the promotion or computer assigned to him for official purpose, not only
advancement of the interests of parties contrary or once but several times gauging by the number of
 SECTION 3, ART. III, POLLO vs CONSTANTINO-DAVID16
pleadings, for ends not in conformity with the interests comment. As this Court held in Civil Service Commission
of the Commission. He was, in effect, acting as a principal v. Court of Appeals57 --
by indispensable cooperation…Or at the very least, he Under Sections 46 and 48 (1), Chapter 6, Subtitle A, Book
should be responsible for serious misconduct for V of E.O. No. 292 and Section 8, Rule II of Uniform Rules
repeatedly allowing CSC resources, that is, the computer on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, a complaint
and the electricity, to be utilized for purposes other than may be initiated against a civil service officer or
what they were officially intended. employee by the appropriate disciplining authority, even
without being subscribed and sworn to. Considering that
Further, the Commission cannot lend credence to the the CSC, as the disciplining authority for Dumlao, filed
posturing of the appellant that the line appearing in one the complaint, jurisdiction over Dumlao was validly
of the documents, "Eric N. Estrellado, Epal kulang ang acquired. (Emphasis supplied.)
bayad mo," was a private joke between the person
alluded to therein, Eric N. Estrellado, and his counsel, As to petitioner’s challenge on the validity of CSC OM
Atty. Solosa, and not indicative of anything more sinister. 10, S. 2002 (CUP), the same deserves scant
The same is too preposterous to be believed. Why would consideration. The alleged infirmity due to the said
such a statement appear in a legal pleading stored in the memorandum order having been issued solely by the
computer assigned to the respondent, unless he had CSC Chair and not the Commission as a collegial body,
something to do with it?56 upon which the dissent of Commissioner Buenaflor is
partly anchored, was already explained by Chairperson
Petitioner assails the CA in not ruling that the CSC should David in her Reply to the Addendum to Commissioner
not have entertained an anonymous complaint since Buenaflor’s previous memo expressing his dissent to the
Section 8 of CSC Resolution No. 99-1936 (URACC) actions and disposition of the Commission in this case.
requires a verified complaint: According to Chairperson David, said memorandum
order was in fact exhaustively discussed, provision by
Rule II – Disciplinary Cases provision in the January 23, 2002 Commission Meeting,
attended by her and former Commissioners Erestain, Jr.
SEC. 8. Complaint. - A complaint against a civil service and Valmores. Hence, the Commission En Banc at the
official or employee shall not be given due course unless time saw no need to issue a Resolution for the purpose
it is in writing and subscribed and sworn to by the and further because the CUP being for internal use of
complainant. However, in cases initiated by the proper the Commission, the practice had been to issue a
disciplining authority, the complaint need not be under memorandum order.58 Moreover, being an
oath. administrative rule that is merely internal in nature, or
which regulates only the personnel of the CSC and not
No anonymous complaint shall be entertained unless the public, the CUP need not be published prior to its
there is obvious truth or merit to the allegation therein effectivity.59
or supported by documentary or direct evidence, in
which case the person complained of may be required In fine, no error or grave abuse of discretion was
to comment. x x x x committed by the CA in affirming the CSC’s ruling that
petitioner is guilty of grave misconduct, dishonesty,
We need not belabor this point raised by petitioner. The conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service,
administrative complaint is deemed to have been and violation of R.A. No. 6713. The gravity of these
initiated by the CSC itself when Chairperson David, after offenses justified the imposition on petitioner of the
a spot inspection and search of the files stored in the ultimate penalty of dismissal with all its accessory
hard drive of computers in the two divisions adverted to penalties, pursuant to existing rules and regulations.
in the anonymous letter -- as part of the disciplining
authority’s own fact-finding investigation and WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is DENIED. The
Decision dated October 11, 2007 and Resolution dated February 29,
information-gathering -- found a prima facie case
2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 98224 are AFFIRMED.
against the petitioner who was then directed to file his
With costs against the petitioner. SO ORDERED.