Case: Pollo vs David

Topic: Search and seizure of government computer

DOCTRINE: 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.

PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

Ricky Pollo CSC Chair Karina David, Dirs. Buensalida,

Castillo, Unite, and Civil Service Commission

ACTION SEQUENCE: Anonymous complaint in CSC –> CSC conducted investigation ->
CSC charged Pollo of violation of RA 6713 -> Petitioner filed Omnibus Motion -> CSC denied
-> Petitioner filed Urgent Petition in CA -> CSC issued a notice of hearing -> Petitioner filed
for TRO and preliminary injunction in CA -> Petitioner moved to reset the pre-hearing pending
CA reso -> CSC denied -> Petitioner filed a case in CA for indirect contempt -> CA dismissed
the petitions

FACTS
 Petitioner Pollo is a former Supervising Personnel Specialist of the CSC Office and OIC
of “Mamamayan Muna Hindi Mamaya Na”.
 On January 2007, CSC Chair David received an anonymous complaint regarding an
employee of CSC lawyering for other employees with pending cases with CSC.
 Chair David issued a memo to conduct an investigation and “back up all files in the
computers found at the Mamamayan Muna and legal divisions.” They then proceeded
to the said offices and sealed all the computers and obtained diskettes containing back
up files. It was revealed that most of the files obtained in Pollo’s computer were draft
pleadings in connection with administrative cases in the CSC and other tribunals.
 Chair David issued a Show-Cause-Order for Pollo. Upon evaluation of the evidence,
she observed that the number of pleadings show that Pollo is doing such activity
regularly and with a fee, and that he was deliberately and willfully aiding and advancing
interests adverse and inimical to the interest of the CSC personnel agency tasked to
discipline misfeasance in the government service.
 Petitioner Rollo, in his comment, argued that the CSC violated his constitutional right to
privacy, protection against self-incrimination, and warrantless search and seizure.
Though the computers are government property, the temporary use and ownership of
such are ceded to the employee by virtue of a Memorandum of Receipt and thus he
may exercise all attributes of ownership, including for personal purposes. He also
asserted that he did not prepare such pleadings but were entrusted to him by “friends”
 CSC charged him with violation of RA 6713 and placed him under preventive
suspension. Later, CSC found him guilty and was dismissed from service

ISSUE/S Whether CSC violated Pollo’s right to privacy and warrantless search and seizure

RULING NO.

In the case of O’Connor vs Ortega, the US SC held that “public employer intrusions on the
constitutionally protected privacy interests of government employees for noninvestigatory, work-
related purposes, as well as for investigations of work-related misconduct, should be judged by
the standard of reasonableness under all the circumstances. Under this reasonableness
standard, both the inception and the scope of the intrusion must be reasonable x x x a search of an
employee’s office by a supervisor will be "justified at its inception" when there are reasonable
grounds for suspecting that the search will turn up evidence that the employee is guilty of work-
related misconduct, x x x The search will be permissible in its scope when "the measures adopted
are reasonably related to the objectives of the search and not excessively intrusive in light of …the
nature of the [misconduct]”

1. Did petitioner have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his office and computer
files?

NO. Petitioner did not allege that he had a separate enclosed office which he didn’t share with
anyone, that it was always locked and not open to other employees, or that he used passwords in
his computer. In fact, he normally has visitors, friends and even unknown people in his office who
he even allowed to use his computer.

Neither does he have subjective expectation of privacy because CSC issued a Memorandum in
2002 on Computer Use 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

2. Was the search authorized by the CSC Chair, the copying of the contents of the hard
drive on petitioner’s computer reasonable in its inception and scope

YES. The search was conducted in connection with investigation of work-related misconducted
prompted by an anonymous letter-complaint addressed to Chair David regarding anomalies in
CSC and Mamamayan Muna.

Here, 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. At the inception of the search, a
complaint was received recounting that a certain division chief in the CSCRO No. IV was "lawyering"
for parties having pending cases with the said regional office or in the Commission. The nature of
the imputation was serious, as it was grievously disturbing. Considering the damaging
nature of the accusation, the Commission had to act fast. That it was the computers that were
subjected to the search was justified since these furnished the easiest means for an
employee to encode and store documents. Indeed, the computers would be a likely starting
point in ferreting out incriminating evidence. Concomitantly, the ephemeral nature of
computer files, that is, they could easily be destroyed at a click of a button, necessitated
drastic and immediate action.

Likewise, the Commission effected the warrantless search in an open and transparent manner.
Officials and some employees of the regional office, who happened to be in the vicinity, were on
hand to observe the process until its completion. In addition, the respondent himself was duly
notified, through text messaging, of the search and the concomitant retrieval of files from his
computer.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION

WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is DENIED. The Decision dated October 11,
2007 and Resolutiondated February 29, 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 98224
are AFFIRMED.

NOTES