Pollo vs David

FACTS:

[This case involves a search of office computer assigned to a government
employee who was then charged administratively and was eventually dismissed from
the service. The employees personal files stored in the computer were used by the
government employer as evidence of his misconduct.]

On January 3, 2007, an anonymous letter-complaint was received by the
respondent Civil Service Commission (CSC) Chairperson alleging that the chief of the
Mamamayan muna hindi mamaya na division of Civil Service Commission Regional
Office No. IV (CSC-ROIV) 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 CSC-ROIV office and backed up all files in
the hard disk of computers at the Public Assistance and Liaison Division (PALD) and the
Legal Services Division. This was witnessed by several employees. At around 10:00
p.m. of the same day, the investigating team finished their task. The next day, all the
computers in the PALD were sealed and secured. The diskettes containing the back-up
files sourced from the hard disk of PALD and LSD computers were then turned over to
Chairperson David. It was found that most of the files in the 17 diskettes containing files
copied from the computer assigned to and being used by the petitioner, numbering
about 40 to 42 documents, were draft pleadings or letters 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 filed his Comment, denying 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, citing the letter dated January 8, 2007
in which he informed Director Castillo of CSC-ROIV that the files in his computer were his
personal files and those of his sister, relatives, friends and some associates and that he is
not authorizing their sealing, copying, duplicating and printing as these would violate
his constitutional right to privacy and protection against self-incrimination and
warrantless search and seizure. He pointed out that though government property, the
temporary use and ownership of the computer issued under a Memorandum of Receipt
is ceded to the employee who may exercise all attributes of ownership, including its use
for personal purposes. In view of the illegal search, the files/documents copied from his
computer without his consent [are] thus 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). Petitioner then filed an Omnibus Motion (For
Reconsideration, to Dismiss and/or to Defer) assailing the formal charge as without basis
having proceeded from an illegal search, which is beyond the authority of the CSC
Chairman, such power pertaining solely to the court. The CSC denied this omnibus
motion.

On March 14, 2007, petitioner filed an Urgent Petition before the Court of
Appeals (CA) assailing both the January 11, 2007 Show-Cause Order and February 26,
2007 Resolution as having been issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
excess or total absence of jurisdiction. On July 24, 2007, the CSC issued a Resolution
finding petitioner GUILTY of Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, Conduct Prejudicial to the
Best Interest of the Service and Violation of Republic Act 6713. He is 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 October 11, 2007, the CA dismissed the petitioners 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:

Was the search conducted on petitioners office computer and the copying of
his personal files without his knowledge and consent alleged as a transgression on his
constitutional right to privacy lawful?

HELD:

[The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the CA, which in turn
upheld the CSC resolution dismissing the petitioner from service. The High Tribunal held
that the search on petitioners office computer and the copying of his personal files
were both LAWFUL and DID NOT VIOLATE his constitutional right to privacy.]

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 but only of unreasonable searches and
seizures.