G.R. No.

181881 October 18, 2011

BRICCIO "Ricky" A. POLLO, Petitioner,

vs.
CHAIRPERSON KARINA CONSTANTINO-DAVID, DIRECTOR IV RACQUEL DE GUZMAN BUENSALIDA, DIRECTOR IV LYDIA A.
CASTILLO, DIRECTOR III ENGELBERT ANTHONY D. UNITE AND THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, Respondents.

CASE DIGEST

FACTS:

CSC Chairperson Karina David received a document from an anonymous source, making her aware that there is a corrupt
official in the Commission. She then formed personnel and directed them to back up all the files of the computers found
therein.

David found, in Bricio Pollo, petitioner, legal pleading or documents that are related to administrative cases and were for
on the behalf of parties who were facing charges. David inferred that he was willfully aiding their adverse interests and it
was a practice that he pursued regularly.

Pollo argued that he was not even a lawyer to pursue such acts. He also asserted that the CSC conducted an intrusive
search and his right to privacy was violated and that the source of the complaint was anonymous. The CSC charged Pollo
with Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and Violation of R.A. No. 6713
(Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees). On 24 July 2007, the CSC issued a Resolution
finding petitioner GUILTY of the same merits and meted the penalty of DISMISSAL FROM THE SERVICE with all its
accessory penalties. This Resolution was also brought to the CA by herein petitioner.

By a Decision dated 11 October 2007, the CA dismissed the petitioner’s petition for certiorari after finding no grave abuse
of discretion committed by respondents CSC officials. His motion for reconsideration having been denied by the CA,
petitioner brought this appeal before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the search conducted and the copying of petitioner’s files without his knowledge and consent lawful?

RULING:

The SC ruled in favor of the CSC. Basing their decision on other cases, the SC asked whether Pollo has a reasonable
expectation of privacy in his office and computer files and was the search reasonable in its inception and scope.

On regards the first inquiry, the SC found that he had no actual expectation of privacy on his work computer. He did not
have a separate office space nor did he use a password for his computer. He would have visitors which he let them use
his computer. The CSC also implemented a policy that its employees on notice that they have no expectation of privacy in
anything on their office computers, and that the CSC may monitor their use. This implies that on-the-spot inspections
may be done to ensure that the computer resources were used only for such legitimate business purposes.

On the second inquiry, the SC said that the search Pollo's files were conducted in connection with investigation of work-
related misconduct prompted by an anonymous letter-complaint. A search by a government employer of an employee’s
office is justified at inception when there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that it will turn up evidence that the
employee is guilty of work-related misconduct.