IGNACIO | LABADAN

ARTICLE III: SECTION 3

(1) The privacy of communication and correspondence
shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the
court, or when public safety or order requires
otherwise, as prescribed by law.

(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the

preceding section shall be inadmissible for any
purpose in any proceeding.

BILL OF RIGHTS SECTION 3

Ignacio | Labadan
CASE STUDY |POLLO VS. DAVID
Facts of the case:
 An anonymous letter arrived at the CSC Central Office
on January 3, 2007 at around 2:30 PM addressed to the
CSC Chairperson Karina Constantino-David

 It was a letter of complaint saying that an attorney

under the ‘Mamamayan Muna’ Division is lawyering
people with pending cases in the CSC

BILL OF RIGHTS SECTION 3

Ignacio | Labadan
CASE STUDY |POLLO VS. DAVID
Facts of the case:
 David formed a team of four (4) people with IT
background and issued a memo to conduct an
investigation

 The team arrived at CSC-ROIV office at Panay Avenue,

Quezon City 5:30 PM, and finished the investigation by
10:00 PM. They collected 17 diskettes containing copies
of the computers’ hard drive

BILL OF RIGHTS SECTION 3

Ignacio | Labadan
CASE STUDY |POLLO VS. DAVID
Facts of the case:
 From these diskettes, 40-42 documents were found on
Pollo’s computer which contained letters connected to
cases in the CSC

 Pollo denied that he is the person described in the

anonymous letter because he is not a lawyer, nor is he
lawyering people with CSC cases

BILL OF RIGHTS SECTION 3

Ignacio | Labadan
CASE STUDY |POLLO VS. DAVID
Facts of the case:
 On February 26, 2007, the CSC issued Resolution No.
070382 finding prima facie case against the petitioner
and charging 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)

BILL OF RIGHTS SECTION 3

Ignacio | Labadan
CASE STUDY |POLLO VS. DAVID
Facts of the case:
 Pollo filed an Omnibus Motion to assail the formal
charges against him, saying that the search was illegal
and it violates his right to privacy

 The CSC denied the petitioner’s omnibus motion, and

treated the said motion as the petitioner’s answer

BILL OF RIGHTS SECTION 3

Ignacio | Labadan
CASE STUDY |POLLO VS. DAVID
Ruling:
 First reason
Justice Harlan said the following reasons protects an
individual from search and seizure:

(1) Expectation of privacy

(2) Expectation should be recognized by society as
reasonable

BILL OF RIGHTS SECTION 3

Ignacio | Labadan
CASE STUDY |POLLO VS. DAVID
Ruling:
 Second reason
A search by a government employer of an
employee’s office is justified when there are
reasonable grounds for suspecting the employee

BILL OF RIGHTS SECTION 3

Ignacio | Labadan
CASE STUDY |POLLO VS. DAVID
Final Jurisdiction:
The petition for review filed by Pollo was DENIED,
affirming the CSC’s ruling that the petitioner is guilty.
The decision is dated October 11, 2017.

BILL OF RIGHTS SECTION 3

Ignacio | Labadan