POLLO VS. CONSTANTINO-DAVID (2011)

Facts:

Ann anonymous letter-complaint was received by the respondent Civil Service Commission Chairperson alleging that an officer of the CSC 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 office and backed up all files in the hard disk of computers at the PALD and the Legal Services Division. Within the same day, the investigating team finished the task. It was found that most of the files copied from the computer assigned to and being used by the petitioner 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 denied 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, and that the files in his computer were his personal files and those of his relatives and associates, and that he is not authorize the activities as they are in violation of his constitutional right to privacy and protection against self-incrimination and warrantless search and seizure.  Also, the files/documents copied from his computer without his consent are 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). 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?

Held:

Yes. 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.

Applying the analysis and principles announced in O’Connor and Simons for warrantless searches involving public employees for work related reasons to the case at bar, we now address the following questions: (1) Did petitioner have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his office and computer files? (2) Was the search authorized by the CSC Chair reasonable in its inception and scope?

The petitioner had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his office and computer files for he failed to prove that he had an actual expectation of privacy either in his office or government-issued computer which contained his personal files.  He did not allege that he had a separate enclosed office which he did not share with anyone, or that his office was always locked and not open to other employees or visitors.  He did not use passwords nor adopted any means to prevent access by others of his computer files. The CSC also implemented a policy which implies on-the-spot inspections may be done to ensure that the computer resources were used only for such legitimate business purposes.

The search authorized by the respondent CSC Chair was reasonable since it was conducted in connection with investigation of work-related misconduct. A search by a government employer of an employee’s office is justified when there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that it will turn up evidence that the employee is guilty of work-related misconduct.

Even conceding for a moment that there is no such administrative policy, there is no doubt in the mind of the Commission that the search of Pollo’s computer has successfully passed the test of reasonableness for warrantless searches in the workplace.  It bears emphasis that the Commission pursued the search in its capacity as a government employer and that it was undertaken in connection with an investigation involving a work-related misconduct, one of the circumstances exempted from the warrant requirement.  The nature of the imputation was serious, as it was grievously disturbing.  If, indeed, a CSC employee was found to be furtively engaged in the practice of “lawyering” for parties with pending cases before the Commission would be a highly repugnant scenario, then such a case would have shattering repercussions.  It is settled that a court or an administrative tribunal must not only be actually impartial but must be seen to be so, otherwise the general public would not have any trust and confidence in it. Considering the damaging nature of the accusation, the Commission had to act fast, if only to arrest or limit any possible adverse consequence or fall-out.

Thus, petitioner’s claim of violation of his constitutional right to privacy must necessarily fail.  His other argument invoking the privacy of communication and correspondence under Section 3(1), Article III of the 1987 Constitution is also untenable considering the recognition accorded to certain legitimate intrusions into the privacy of employees in the government workplace under the aforecited authorities.  We likewise find no merit in his contention that O’Connor and Simons are not relevant because the present case does not involve a criminal offense like child pornography. As already mentioned, the search of petitioner’s computer was justified there being reasonable ground for suspecting that the files stored therein would yield incriminating evidence relevant to the investigation being conducted by CSC as government employer of such misconduct subject of the anonymous complaint.  This situation clearly falls under the exception to the warrantless requirement in administrative searches defined in O’Connor.