G.R. No. 181881 - Pollo vs. Constantino-David

Petitioner Briccio “Ricky” A. Pollo was Supervising Personnel Specialist and OIC of the Public Assistance and Liaison Division (PALD) at CSC-RO IV under the “Mamamayan Muna Hindi Mamaya Na” program.
Respondents were CSC Chairperson Karina Constantino-David and CSC officials who directed and conducted the investigation.

On January 3, 2007 an unsigned, “Confidential” letter from “Alan San Pascual” alleged that a CSC-RO IV division chief was “lawyering” for parties with pending CSC cases, tainting the Commission’s integrity.
Chairperson David formed an IT team by memo to “back up all the files in the computers found in the Mamamayan Muna (PALD) and Legal divisions.” The team copied hard-disk files around 5:30–10:00 p.m. on January 3, 2007, while Directors Castillo and Unite and staff witnessed the activity.

Chairperson David issued a Show-Cause Order (January 11, 2007) based on the backed-up files showing draft pleadings for respondents in CSC cases, inferring misconduct. Petitioner denied authorship, claimed policy breach, and invoked rights against unreasonable search and self-incrimination.
CSC Resolution No. 070382 (February 26, 2007) found prima facie cases for dishonesty, grave misconduct, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, and violation of R.A. No. 6713, imposed preventive suspension, and ordered a formal investigation resulting in an ex parte finding of guilt and dismissal (CSC Resolution No. 071420, July 24, 2007).

Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 in the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 98224) challenging the search and proceedings; the CA dismissed it on October 11, 2007 and denied reconsideration on February 29, 2008.
Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Rule 45 petition seeking reversal of the CA decision and CSC resolutions, principally contesting the search’s legality and his privacy rights.

Whether the warrantless search and backup of petitioner’s office computer violated his constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures and his right to privacy.

Whether petitioner retained a reasonable expectation of privacy in the computer files assigned to him by CSC despite Office Memorandum No. 10, s. 2002 (Computer Use Policy).

Whether the documents copied from petitioner’s computer are inadmissible “fruits of the poisonous tree” due to an unlawful search.

Whether CSC could initiate disciplinary proceedings on the basis of an anonymous letter absent a sworn complaint under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (URACC).