Page 1 of 1

POLLO V. CONSTANTINO-DAVID
FACTS:
This case involved a search of an office computer assigned to the petitioner, an employee of the
Civil Service Commission Regional Office No. IV (CSC-ROIV). The search was a consequence of an
anonymous letter-complaint received by respondent CSC Chairperson alleging that the chief of the
Mamamayanmunahindimamayana division of CSC-ROIV has been lawyering for public officials with
pending cases in the CSC. The employees personal files stored in the computer, many of which were draft
pleadings or letters in connection with administrative cases in the CSC and other tribunals, were used as
evidence in the administrative proceedings subsequently initiated against him.
HELD:
Petitioner failed to prove that he had an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy either in his
office or government-issued computer which contained his personal files. Petitioner did not allege that he
had a separate enclosed office which he did not share with anyone, or that his office was always locked
and not open to other employees or visitors. Neither did he allege that he used passwords or adopted any
means to prevent other employees from accessing his computer files.
Moreover, even assuming arguendo, in the absence of allegation or proof of the aforementioned
factual circumstances, that petitioner had at least a subjective expectation of privacy in his computer as
he claims, such is negated by the presence of policy regulating the use of office computers [CSC Office
Memorandum No. 10, S. 2002 Computer Use Policy (CUP)], as in Simons. The CSC in this case had
implemented a 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. This implies that on-the-spot
inspections may be done to ensure that the computer resources were used only for such legitimate
business purposes.
The search authorized by the respondent CSC Chair, which involved the copying of the contents of
the hard drive on petitioners computer, was reasonable in its inception and scope.
The search of petitioners computer files was conducted in connection with investigation of workrelated misconduct prompted by an anonymous letter-complaint addressed to Chairperson David regarding
anomalies in the CSC-ROIV where the head of the MamamayanMuna Hindi Mamaya Na division is
supposedly lawyering for individuals with pending cases in the CSC. A search by a government employer
of an employees 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.