Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 71 views

    Pollo Vs Constantino David

    Uploaded by

    adee
    The case involved an employee, Pollo, who was dismissed from service after confidential files were copied from his computer without a warrant during an investigation initiated by the Civil Service Commission (CSC) chairperson. Pollo argued the search and seizure were illegal. The Supreme Court ruled the search was valid, as the CSC passed the reasonableness test as a government employer investigating work-related misconduct. While government employees still have privacy protections, some work environments provide no reasonable expectation of privacy. The specific situation was assessed and Pollo's expectation of privacy was deemed unreasonable.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Pollo Vs Constantino David

    Uploaded by

    adee
    71 views2 pages
    The case involved an employee, Pollo, who was dismissed from service after confidential files were copied from his computer without a warrant during an investigation initiated by the Civil Service Commission (CSC) chairperson. Pollo argued the search and seizure were illegal. The Supreme Court ruled the search was valid, as the CSC passed the reasonableness test as a government employer investigating work-related misconduct. While government employees still have privacy protections, some work environments provide no reasonable expectation of privacy. The specific situation was assessed and Pollo's expectation of privacy was deemed unreasonable.

    Original Title

    90. Pollo vs Constantino David

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The case involved an employee, Pollo, who was dismissed from service after confidential files were copied from his computer without a warrant during an investigation initiated by the Civil Service Commission (CSC) chairperson. Pollo argued the search and seizure were illegal. The Supreme Court ruled the search was valid, as the CSC passed the reasonableness test as a government employer investigating work-related misconduct. While government employees still have privacy protections, some work environments provide no reasonable expectation of privacy. The specific situation was assessed and Pollo's expectation of privacy was deemed unreasonable.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    71 views2 pages

    Pollo Vs Constantino David

    Uploaded by

    adee
    The case involved an employee, Pollo, who was dismissed from service after confidential files were copied from his computer without a warrant during an investigation initiated by the Civil Service Commission (CSC) chairperson. Pollo argued the search and seizure were illegal. The Supreme Court ruled the search was valid, as the CSC passed the reasonableness test as a government employer investigating work-related misconduct. While government employees still have privacy protections, some work environments provide no reasonable expectation of privacy. The specific situation was assessed and Pollo's expectation of privacy was deemed unreasonable.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    90Abskidoodle

    CASE TITLE: Pollo vs Constantino David

    G.R. NUMBER & DATE: G.R. No. 181881, October 18, 2011

    NATURE OF CASE: Employees personal files as evidence of misconduct

    DOCTRINE/PRINCIPLE: Searches and Seizures

    PETITIONERS: Briccio Ricky A. Pollo, dismissed from service as Supervising Personnel


    Specialist of the CSC

    RESPONDENTS: CSC officials including: Chairperson Constantino-David, Raquel de


    Guzman Buensalida (Director IV), Lydia Castillo (Director IV), Engelbert Donite (Director III)

    Facts: An anonymous letter-complaint was mailed to the office of CSC Chairperson


    Constantino David regarding an employee of the agency allegedly representing an accused
    govt employee having a pending case in the CSC. Constanino-David issued a memo directing
    four IT personnel to conduct an investigation by backing up the files of all computers in the in
    the Mamamayan Muna (PALD) and Legal Divisions. Pollo and the head of the LSD were
    informed by Director Unite of the order through text as they were out of the office at the time.
    Pollo replied that he will just leave the matter to Director Unite and will just get a lawyer. Upon
    examination by the Office for Legal Affairs, 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[7] in connection with administrative cases in
    the CSC and other tribunals. A show cause order was issued, and respondent through
    comment that he is the person referred to in the complaint as he is not a lawyer and neither is
    he lawyering for people with cases in the CSC. In February 2007, CSC issued a resolution
    finding Pollo guilty of Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest
    of the Service and rendering him under 90 days preventive suspension. He filed an Omnibus
    Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that the formal charge originated from an illegal search, and
    that the files were prepared by people whom he allowed to make use of his computer.
    Attached to the motion were the affidavit of Atty. Ponciano R. Solosa who entrusted his own
    files to be kept at petitioners CPU and Atty. Eric N. Estrellado. The CSC denied the Omnibus
    Motion. Petitioner filed an urgent motion for a TRO in the CA and asked the CSC to suspend
    the pre-hearing conference while waiting for the CA decision. The petitioner and his counsel
    failed to appear in the pre-hearing and was deemed to have waived his right to the formal
    investigation which then proceeded ex parte. The CSC issued a new resolution finding him
    guilty of Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct, and dismissed him from service.

    Jurisprudence
    The CSC cited the following US cases: OConnor vs Ortega: government agencies, in their
    capacity as employers, rather than law enforcers, could validly conduct search and seizure in
    the governmental workplace without meeting the probable cause or warrant requirement for
    search and seizure.

    United States v. Mark L. Simons: Simons, a CIA employee was was convicted of
    downloading materials containing child pornography. The CIA had a computer use policy
    which stipulated that computers may only be used for official government business. The
    offense was discovered through the regular audit of internet use by the agency, following the
    same policy. The warrantless search of Simon’s office was upheld as valid because a
    government employer is entitled to conduct a warrantless search pursuant to an investigation
    of work-related misconduct provided the search is reasonable in its inception and scope. The
    CA denied respondent’s appeal after finding no grave abuse of discretion by the CSC officials.

    Petitioner’s Arguments: Respondent has no reasonable expectation of privacy due to the


    computer use policy which unequivocally declared that a CSC employee cannot assert any
    privacy right to a computer assigned to him. The search passed the reasonableness test for
    warrantless searches.

    Respondent's Arguments: Chairperson David had encroached on the authority of a judge in


    view of the CSC computer policy; that the files acquired were inadmissible as evidence for
    having been the result of an invalid search and seizure

    ISSUE: W/N the search and seizure of the computer files were valid

    FALLO: Petition for certoriari denied. CA decision affirmed.

    HELD: YES. The search was valid for having passed the reasonableness standard, as there
    was 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. Respondent also cannot invoke the
    right to privacy and communication under Section 3(1), Article III of the 1987 Constitution as it
    was a legitimate intrusion accorded to the authorities.

    The reasonableness standard states that  both the inception and the scope of the
    intrusion must be reasonable:
    Determining the reasonableness of any search involves a twofold
    inquiry: first, one must consider whether the action was justified at its
    inception, x x x ; second, one must determine whether the search as
    actually conducted was reasonably related in scope to the
    circumstances which justified the interference in the first place, x x x

    Notes:
    - The constitutional protection against unreasonable searches by the government does
    not disappear merely because the government has the right to make reasonable
    intrusions in its capacity as employer, x x x but some government offices may be so
    open to fellow employees or the public that no expectation of privacy is reasonable. x
    x x Given the great variety of work environments in the public sector, the question of
    whether an employee has a reasonable expectation of privacy must be addressed on
    a case-by-case basis.

    You might also like