Pollo vs.

Constantino-David
G. R. No. 181881, October 18, 2011

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.

FACTS: Petitioner Pollo is a former Supervising Personnel Specialist of the CSC Regional
Office No. IV and also the Officer-in-Charge of the Public Assistance and Liaison Division
(PALD) under the “Mamamayan Muna Hindi Mamaya Na” program of the CSC. On January 3.
2007, CSC Chairperson Karina Constantino-David received an unsigned complaint letter which
was marked “Confidential” and was sent through a courier service (LBC) from certain Allan San
Pascual of Bagong Silang, Caloocan City. The letter contains allegations stating that the
petitioner has been helping a number of individuals who have pending cases in the CSC. The
letter sender’s intention was that the CSC should investigate this anomaly to maintain the clean
and good behaviour of their office. Chairperson David immediately formed a team of four
personnel with background in information technology (IT), and issued a memo directing them to
conduct an investigation and specifically “to back up all the files in the computers found in the
Mamamayan Muna (PALD) and Legal divisions.”

After a briefing, the team went to the CSC-ROIV office at Panay Avenue, Quezon City. The
backing-up of all files in the hard disk of computers at the PALD and Legal Services Division
(LSD) was witnessed by several employees, together with Directors Castillo and Unite who
closely monitored said activity. At around 6:00 p.m., Director Unite sent text messages to
petitioner and the head of LSD, who were both out of the office at the time, informing them of
the ongoing copying of computer files in their divisions upon orders of the CSC Chair.

ISSUE: Whether or not the search conducted in the petitioner’s office computer and the copying
of his personal files without his knowledge and consent, alleged as a transgression of his
constitutional right to privacy is justified

RULING: YES. The search conducted on petitioner’s computer was justified at its inception and
scope, there being reasonable ground for suspecting that the files stored therein would yield
incriminating evidence relevant to the investigation being conducted by the CSC as government
employer of such misconduct subject to the anonymous complaint. The fact that these documents
were retrieved from the computer of Pollo raises the presumption that he was the author thereof.

The search of petitioner’s computer files was conducted in connection with investigation of
work-related misconduct prompted by an anonymous letter-complaint addressed to Chairperson
David regarding anomalies in the CSC-ROIV where the head of the Mamamayan Muna Hindi
Mamaya Na division is supposedly “lawyering” for individuals with pending cases in the CSC.
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.
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, on the same date that the
complaint was received, a search was forthwith conducted involving the computer resources in
the concerned regional office. 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. Pointedly, to impose the need to
comply with the probable cause requirement would invariably defeat the purpose of the work-
related investigation.

Worthy to mention, too, is the fact that 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.

Pollo’s claim that the search was a 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.