Pollo v.

David-Constantino
G.R. No. 181881 | 2011-10-18

Subject:  Right to Privacy, Reasonable Expectation of Privacy, Initiating and

Administrative Complaint in the CSC

Facts:

An unsigned letter-complaint was filed before the Civil Service Commission (CSC)
accusing the petitioner of acting as counsel of another person in the latter's case before
the same agency. Upon the instructions of the respondent CSC Chairperson, the
computers within the division where the petitioner was assigned were searched, the
files therein were copied, and later on sealed and secured to preserve the files therein.
Based on the evidence obtained from such search, a formal charge was filed against
him for dishonesty, grave misconduct, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the
service, and violation of R.A. 6713. He was found guilty by the CSC, and meted out
with the penalty of dismissal from service. Petitioner thereafter questioned the legality
of the search conducted by the CSC on his computer before the Supreme Court.

Held:

Right to Privacy

1.The constitutional guarantee is not a prohibition of all searches and seizures but only
of 'unreasonable' searches and seizures.  

2.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.

 
Warrantless Searches by Employers

3.There are "special needs" which authorize warrantless searches involving public
employees for work-related reasons. The Court thus laid down a balancing test under
which government interests are weighed against the employee's reasonable expectation
of privacy.  This reasonableness test implicates neither probable cause nor the warrant
requirement, which are related to law enforcement.

Reasonable Expectation of Privacy

4.To determine whether an employee has a reasonable expectation of privacy, the

relevant surrounding circumstances to consider include (1) the employee's relationship
to the item seized; (2) whether the item was in the immediate control of the employee
when it was seized; and (3) whether the employee took actions to maintain his privacy
in the item.  These factors are relevant to both the subjective and objective prongs of
the reasonableness inquiry, and we consider the two questions together.

Substantial Evidence

5. 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.

Initiating an Administrative Complaint in the CSC

6. The administrative complaint is deemed to have been initiated by the CSC itself
when Chairperson David, after a spot inspection and search of the files stored in the
hard drive of computers in the two divisions adverted to in the anonymous letter -- as
part of the disciplining authority's own fact-finding investigation and information-
gathering -- found a prima facie case against the petitioner who was then directed to
file his comment.