Pollo vs.

Constantino-David 659 SCRA 189 , October 18, 2011

FACTS:

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 computers were turned over to Chairperson David. The contents of the diskettes were
examined by the CSC’s Office for Legal Affairs (OLA). 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. On the basis of this finding,
Chairperson David issued the Show-Cause Order, requiring the petitioner, who had gone on
extended leave, 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. He 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
((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.

 ISSUE:

Whether or not the item was in the immediate control of the employee when it was
seized.

RULING:

NO, the item was in the immediate control of the employee when it was seized.

The CSC in this case had implemented a policy that put its employees on notice that they
have no expectation of privacy in anything they create, store, send or receive on the office
computers, and that the CSC may monitor the use of the computer resources using both
automated or human means. This implies that on-the-spot inspections may be done to ensure that
the computer resources were used only for such legitimate business purposes.

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.