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.

G.R. No. 181881               October 18, 2011

[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 employee’s
personal files stored in the computer were used by the government employer as evidence of his
misconduct.]

Facts: Petitioner is a former Supervising Personnel Specialist of the CSC Regional Office No.
IV and also the Officer-in-Charge of the Public Assistance and Liaison Division (PALD) under
the "Mamamayan Muna Hindi Mamaya Na" program of the CSC.

Respondent CSC Chair Constantino-David received an anonymous letter complaint alleging of

an anomaly taking place in the Regional Office of the CSC. The respondent then formed a team
and issued a memo directing the team “to back up all the files in the computers found in the
Mamamayan Muna (PALD) and Legal divisions.” Several diskettes containing the back-up files
sourced from the hard disk of PALD and LSD contained 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. On
the basis of this finding, Chairperson David issued the Show-Cause Order, requiring the
petitioner, to submit his explanation or counter-affidavit within five days from notice. In his
Comment, petitioner denied the accusations against him and accused the CSC Officials of
“fishing expedition” when they unlawfully copied and printed personal files in his computer.

Petitioner was charged of violating R.A. No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for
Public Officials and Employees). He assailed the formal charge and filed an Omnibus Motion
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 which was
and treated as the petitioner’s answer to the charge. In view of the absence of petitioner and his
counsel, and upon the motion of the prosecution, petitioner was deemed to have waived his
right to the formal investigation which then proceeded ex parte. The petitioner was dismissed
from service. He filed a petition to the CA which was dismissed by the latter on the ground that it
found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the respondents. He filed a motion for
reconsideration which was further denied by the appellate court. Hence, this petition.

Issue: Whether the CSC was correct in finding the petitioner guilty of the charges and
dismissing him from the service.

Held: Yes. Well-settled is the rule that the findings of fact of quasi-judicial agencies, like the
CSC, are accorded not only respect but even finality if such findings are supported by
substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is such amount of relevant evidence which a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other equally
reasonable minds might conceivably opine otherwise.
The CSC based its findings on evidence consisting of a substantial number of drafts of legal
pleadings and documents stored in his office computer, as well as the sworn affidavits and
testimonies of the witnesses it presented during the formal investigation. According to the CSC,
these documents were confirmed to be similar or exactly the same content-wise with those on
the case records of some cases pending either with CSCRO No. IV, CSC-NCR or the
Commission Proper. There were also substantially similar copies of those pleadings filed with
the CA and duly furnished the Commission. Further, the CSC found the explanation given by
petitioner, to the effect that those files retrieved from his computer hard drive actually belonged
to his lawyer friends Estrellado and Solosa whom he allowed the use of his computer for
drafting their pleadings in the cases they handle, as implausible and doubtful under the
circumstances. We hold that the CSC’s factual finding regarding the authorship of the subject
pleadings and misuse of the office computer is well-supported by the evidence on record.
Inevitably, the fact that these documents were retrieved from the computer of Pollo raises the
presumption that he was the author thereof.  The gravity of these offenses justified the
imposition on petitioner of the ultimate penalty of dismissal with all its accessory penalties,
pursuant to existing rules and regulations.