GOLANGCO VS FUNG

504 SCRA 321, G.R. No. 147640 October 12, 2006

JOWE !. GOLANGCO,"et#t#o$er %&. A'. JONE (. FUNG, re&"o$)e$t.
FACTS: Respondent is an employee of the Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration (POEA) and was, at that time, assined as Offi!er"#n"Chare of
the Operations and S$rveillan!e %ivision, Anti"#lleal Re!r$itment &ran!h,
'i!ensin and Re$lation Offi!e, $nder the a$spi!es of the %epartment of 'a(or
and Employment (%O'E)) Some inspe!tors of the POEA 'i!ensin and
Re$lation Offi!e went to the offi!e of *+, (Phil)) #n!) and in-$ired from
petitioner *olan!o, the President of *+, (Phil)) #n!), a(o$t the alleation that
the aen!y !olle!ted e.!essive fees from its appli!ants) Petitioner *olan!o
denied s$!h alleation) the operatives re!ommended that an entrapment
operation (e !ond$!ted on the employees of the aen!y) A /oint POEA"C#S team
headed (y respondent with eiht others as mem(ers, in!l$din SPO0 &onita and
SPO1 2a!arias, pro!eeded to the premises of *+, (Phil)) #n!) to !ond$!t the
said operation) %$rin the arrest of En!enada, petitioner *olan!o was not
aro$nd) 3hen he arrived, he, too, was arrested (y the POEA"C#S team and was
(ro$ht to the POEA 4ead-$arters for investiation) Arieved (y his arrest,
petitioner *olan!o filed a !riminal !omplaint aainst respondent (efore the
Offi!e of the Om($dsman for ar(itrary detention and violation of Se!tion 5,
pararaphs (a) and (e) of Rep$(li! A!t 6o) 5789) The !ase was do!:eted as
O,&"7"95"707;) An administrative !omplaint for oppression, a($se of a$thority,
ross ineffi!ien!y, ross nele!t of d$ty and rave mis!ond$!t arisin from the
same in!ident was li:ewise filed aainst respondent whi!h was do!:eted as
O,&"A%,"7"95"7809)
The administrative !omplaint aainst respondent, do!:eted as O,&"
A%,"7"95"7809, pro!eeded independently of the !riminal !omplaint) #n a
Resol$tion dated 85 ,ar!h 899<, *#O ## Celso R) %ao fo$nd respondent $ilty of
the administrative !hares aainst him and re!ommended his dismissal from the
servi!e for !a$se with the a!!essory penalties of forfeit$re of his leave !redits
and retirement (enefits and dis-$alifi!ation from f$rther re"employment in the
overnment) This Resol$tion was disapproved (y Assistant Om($dsman
A(elardo ') Aportadera, =r) who re!ommended the reassinment of the !ase to
another raft investiatin offi!er so that the administrative aspe!t of the !ase
!an >(e re!on!iled with the fa!ts fo$nd in the !riminal aspe!t of the !ase)> The
re!ommendation of Assistant Om($dsman A(elardo ') Aportadera, =r) was later
approved (y Overall %ep$ty Om($dsman Fran!is!o A) ?illa and the !ase was
reassined to *#O Onos)
#SS@E: 34ET4ER OR 6OT T4E APPE''ATE CO@RT A A@O 4AS
=@R#S%#CT#O6 TO RE?#E3 T4E F#6%#6*S OF PRO&A&'E CA@SE &B T4E
O,&@%S,A6 #6 T4E CR#,#6A' CASE O,&"7"95"707;, ,@C4 'ESS
%#RECT T4E 'ATTER TO 3#T4%RA3 SA#% CASE A'REA%B F#'E% 3#T4
RE*#O6A' TR#A' CO@RT, 6OT3#T4STA6%#6* T4AT #TS APPE''ATE
=@R#S%#CT#O6 PERTA#6S O6'B TO T4E A%,#6#STRAT#?E %#SC#P'#6ARB
CASE O,&"A%,"7"95"7809 34#C4 #S %#ST#6CT A6% #6%EPE6%E6T OF
SA#% CR#,#6A' CASE)
4E'%:The Co$rt of Appeals has /$risdi!tion over orders, dire!tives, and
de!isions of the Offi!e of the Om($dsman in administrative dis!iplinary !ases
onlyCit !annot review the orders, dire!tives, or de!isions of the Of f i !e of t he
Om($dsman i n !r i mi nal or non" admi ni st r at i ve !ases) the Co$rt
of Appeals did not err when it held that respondent is not lia(le for the
administrative !hare h$rled aainst him) 'i:ewise, petitioners *olan!o and the
Offi!e of the Om($dsman assail the a!t$ation of the Co$rt of Appeals in ta:in
!oniDan!e of the !riminal !ase aainst respondent and dire!tin the Offi!e of
the Om($dsman to withdraw Criminal Case 6o) 9E"809800) This, a!!ordin to
petitioners, is in violation of esta(lished /$rispr$den!e statin that the Co$rt of
Appeals has no a$thority to review the findin of pro(a(le !a$se (y the Offi!e of
the Om($dsman)
*ERE+ VS OFF,CE OF -E O.(U/S.AN
420 SCRA 357, G.R. No. 131445, .12 27, 2004
FACTS: Petitioners, mem(ers of the Fil$san &ayan n ma ,atitinda n
&aon Pamilihan &ayan n ,$ntinl$pa, #n!) (F&,&P,), instit$ted two
!omplaints at the Offi!e of the Om($dsman (do!:eted as O,&"7"G9"79G5 and
O,&"7"G9"877;) aainst several respondents, one of whom was then ,ayor
#na!io R) &$nye, for violation of RA 5789 (also :nown as the HAnti"*raft and
Corr$pt Pra!ti!es A!tI)) Respondents alleedly destroyed the doors of the
F&,&P, offi!e while servin on petitioners the Ta:e"Over Order of the
F&,&P, manaement dated O!to(er 1G, 899G iss$ed (y then Ari!$lt$re
Se!retary Carlos *) %omin$eD) #n disposin of said !omplaints on April 88,
899;, the Offi!e of the Om($dsman iss$ed a resol$tion (hereinafter,
HOm($dsman resol$tionI) e.!l$din respondent &$nye from the !riminal
indi!tment) The petitioners assailed the e.!l$sion in the CA on Septem(er 8,
899; thro$h an oriinal petition for !ertiorari and mandam$s) The CA, however,
dismissed it for la!: of /$risdi!tion s$pposedly in a!!ordan!e with Se!tion 1; of
RA E;;7 (also :nown as the HOm($dsman A!t of 89G9I))
#SS@E: 3O6 there is rave a($se of dis!retion on the part of the Offi!e of the
Om($dsman in dismissin the !omplaint aainst respondent &$nye)
4E'%: #t is the nat$re of the !ase that determines the proper remedy to (e filed
and the appellate !o$rt where s$!h remedy sho$ld (e filed (y a party arieved
(y the de!isions or orders of the Offi!e of the Om($dsman) #f it is an
administrative !ase, appeal sho$ld (e ta:en to the Co$rt of Appeals $nder R$le
05 of the R$les of Co$rt) #f it is a !riminal !ase, the proper remedy is to file with
the S$preme Co$rt an oriinal petition for !ertiorari $nder R$le E<) The !o$rt held
that altho$h the CA was !orre!t in dismissin the petition for !ertiorari, it
erroneo$sly invo:ed as ratio de!idendi Se!tion 1; of RA E;;7J whi!h applies in
administrative !ases only, not !riminal !ases, s$!h as the raft and !orr$ption
!hare at (ar) #n o$r en (an! de!ision in Fa(ian vs) %esierto, whi!h is still
!ontrollin, the !o$rt held that Se!tion 1; applies only whenever an appeal (y
!ertiorari $nder R$le 0< is ta:en from a de!ision in an administrative dis!iplinary
a!tion) 6evertheless, the !o$rt de!lared Se!tion 1; $n!onstit$tional for
e.pandin the S$preme Co$rtKs appellate /$risdi!tion witho$t its advi!e and
!onsent) 3e th$s held that all appeals from de!isions of the Offi!e of the
Om($dsman in administrative dis!iplinary !ases sho$ld (e ta:en to the Co$rt of
Appeals $nder R$le 05 of the 899; R$les of Co$rt) As the present !ontroversy
pertained to a !riminal !ase, the petitioners were !orre!t in availin of the remedy
of petition for !ertiorari $nder R$le E< ($t they erred in filin it in the Co$rt of
Appeals) *rave a($se of dis!retion implies a !apri!io$s and whimsi!al e.er!ise
of /$dment tantamo$nt to la!: of /$risdi!tion) #n other words, the e.er!ise of
power is in an ar(itrary or despoti! manner (y reason of passion or personal
hostility) #t m$st (e so patent and ross as to amo$nt to an evasion of positive
d$ty or a virt$al ref$sal to perform the d$ty en/oined or to a!t at all in
!ontemplation of law) #n this !ase, there was no rave a($se of dis!retion on the
part of the Offi!e of the Om($dsman in dismissin the !omplaint aainst
respondent &$nye)
*EO*LE VS AS,S
620 SCRA 250, 320104
FACTS: The RTC a!-$itted a!!$sed A(ordo of the attempted m$rder of ,ontes,
and only held him lia(le of Serio$s Physi!al #n/$ries for shootin CalveD, and
'ess Serio$s Physi!al #n/$ries with reard to ,a/ait) The OS* filed a petition for
!ertiorari $nder R$le E< (efore the Co$rt of Appeals, ($t the CA dismissed the
petition for (ein the wron remedy) A!!ordin to the CA, the remedy sho$ld
have (een an appeal, not petition for !ertiorari)
#SS@E: 3O6 the proper remedy to -$estion a verdi!t of a!-$ittal is a petition for
!ertiorari)
4E'%: Certiorari is the proper remedy A petition for !ertiorari $nder R$le E<, not
appeal, is the remedy to -$estion a verdi!t of a!-$ittal whether at the trial !o$rt
or at the appellate level) Sin!e appeal !o$ld not (e ta:en witho$t violatin A(ordo
s !onstit$tionally $aranteed riht aainst do$(le /eopardy, the OS* was !orre!t
in p$rs$in its !a$se via a petition for !ertiorari $nder R$le E< (efore the
appellate !o$rt)
" E.!eption to Finality"of"A!-$ittal %o!trine
#n o$r /$risdi!tion, we adhere to the finality"of"a!-$ittal do!trine, that is, a
/$dment of a!-$ittal is final and $nappeala(le) The r$le, however, is not witho$t
e.!eption) #n several !ases, the Co$rt has entertained petitions for !ertiorari
-$estionin the a!-$ittal of the a!!$sed in, or the dismissals of, !riminal !ases)
#n People v 'o$el@y, the Co$rt said that petition for !ertiorari $nder R$le E< is
appropriate $pon !lear showin (y the petitioner that the lower !o$rt in a!-$ittin
the a!!$sed: (8) Committed reversi(le errors of /$dment (1) *rave a($se of
dis!retion amo$ntin to la!: or e.!ess of /$risdi!tion or denial of d$e pro!ess)
S$!h !ommission of the lower !o$rt renders its /$dment void)
" 6o do$(le /eopardy
3hen the order or dismissal is ann$lled or set aside (y an appellate !o$rt in an
oriinal spe!ial !ivil a!tion via !ertiorari, the riht of the a!!$sed aainst do$(le
/eopardy is not violated) S$!h dismissal order, (ein !onsidered void /$dment,
does not res$lt in /eopardy)
" OS* s petition for !ertiorari (efore the CA, however, is (ereft of merit
3hile the CA was erroneo$s of dismissin the petition, the OS* s petition for
!ertiorari if iven d$e !o$rse is (ereft of merit) 3hile !ertiorari may (e availed of
to !orre!t an erroneo$s a!-$ittal, the petitioner in s$!h an e.traordinary
pro!eedin m$st !learly demonstrate that the trial !o$rt (latantly a($sed its
a$thority to a point so rave as to deprive it of its very power to dispense /$sti!e)
A readin of the OS* petition fails to show that the prose!$tion was deprived of
its riht to d$e pro!ess) Also, what the OS* is -$estionin are errors of
/$dment) This, however, !annot (e resolved witho$t violatin A(ordo s
!onstit$tionally $aranteed riht aainst do$(le /eopardy) An appellate !o$rt in a
petition for !ertiorari !annot review a trial !o$rt s eval$ation of the eviden!e and
fa!t$al findins) Errors of /$dment !annot (e raised in a R$le E< petition as a
writ of !ertiorari !an only !orre!t errors of /$risdi!tion or those involvin the
!ommission of rave a($se of dis!retion)
" Error of =$dment v Error of =$risdi!tion
Any error !ommitted in the eval$ation of eviden!e is merely an error of /$dment
that !annot (e remedied (y !ertiorari) An error of /$dment is one in whi!h the
!o$rt may !ommit in the e.er!ise of its /$risdi!tion) An error of /$risdi!tion is one
where the a!t !omplained of was iss$ed (y the !o$rt witho$t or in e.!ess of
/$risdi!tion, or with rave a($se of dis!retion whi!h is tantamo$nt to la!: or in
e.!ess of /$risdi!tion and whi!h error is !orre!ti(le only (y the e.traordinary writ
of !ertiorari) Certiorari will (ot(e iss$ed to !$re errors (y the trial !o$rt in its
appre!iation of the eviden!e of the parties, and its !on!l$sions an!hored on the
said findins and its !on!l$sions of law)
*EO*LE VS VELASCO
340 SCRA 207 320004
G.R. No. 127444 3Se"te5ber 13, 20004
FACTS: Trial !o$rt a!-$itted respondent from a !ase of m$rderL two !ases of
fr$strated m$rder and a !ase for illeal possession of firearms o$tside of his
residen!e) The prose!$tion filed a petition for !ertiorari on the ro$nd that the
trial !o$rt deli(erately and wronf$lly interpreted !ertain fa!ts and eviden!e)
#SS@E: One is the propriety of certiorari as an e.traordinary mode of review
$nder R$le E< of the R$les of Co$rt where the res$lt a!t$ally intended is the
reversal of the a!-$ittal of private respondent *alveD) The other is the
permissi(ility of a review (y the Co$rt of a /$dment of a!-$ittal in liht of the
!onstit$tional interdi!t aainst do$(le /eopardy)
4E'%: On the ro$nd of do$(le /eopardy, an a!-$ittal is final and $nappeala(le)
Prose!$tion !annot a!!omplish thro$h a writ of !ertiorari what it !o$ld not do so
(y appeal) it m$st (e e.plained that $nder e.istin Ameri!an law and
/$rispr$den!e, appeals may (e had not only from !riminal !onvi!tions ($t also, in
some limited instan!es, from dismissals of !riminal !hares, sometimes loosely
termed >a!-$ittals)> &$t this is so as long as the judgments of dismissals do not
involve determination of evidence, s$!h as when the /$de:(a) iss$es a post"
verdi!t a!-$ittal, i)e), a!-$its the defendant on a matter of law after a verdi!t of
$ilty has (een entered (y a trier of fa!ts (a /$ry)L (() orders the dismissal on
ro$nds other than ins$ffi!ien!y of eviden!e, as when the stat$te $pon whi!h the
indi!tment was (ased is defe!tiveL (!) !ond$!ts a /$di!ial pro!ess that is
defe!tive or flawed in some f$ndamental respe!t, s$!h asin!orre!t re!eipt or
re/e!tion of eviden!e, in!orre!t instr$!tions, or prose!$torial mis!ond$!tL (d)
iss$es an order arrestin /$dment, i)e), an a!t of a trial /$de ref$sin to enter
/$dment on the verdi!t (e!a$se of an error appearin on the fa!e of the re!ord
that rendered the /$dmentL or, (e) prono$n!es /$dment on a spe!ial plea in (ar
(a non obstante plea) " one that does not relate to the $ilt or inno!en!e of the
defendant, ($t whi!h is set $p as a spe!ial defense relatin to an o$tside matter
($t whi!h may have (een !onne!ted with the !ase)#nterestinly, the !ommon
feat$re of these instan!es of dismissal is that they all (ear on -$estions of law or
matters $nrelated to a fa!t$al resol$tion of the !ase whi!h !onse-$ently, on
appeal, will not involve a review of eviden!e) #ts loi!al effe!t in Ameri!an law is
to render appeals therefrom non"rep$nant to the %o$(le =eopardy Cla$se)
The offi!e of the !ommon law writ of certiorari is to (rin (efore the !o$rt
for inspe!tion the re!ord of the pro!eedins of an inferior tri($nal in order that the
s$perior !o$rt may determine from the fa!e of the re!ord whether the inferior
!o$rt has e.!eeded its /$risdi!tion, or has not pro!eeded a!!ordin to the
essential re-$irements of the law) 4owever, the oriinal f$n!tion and p$rpose of
the writ have (een so modified (y stat$tes and /$di!ial de!isions) #t is parti!$larly
so in the field of !riminal law when the state is applyin for the writ and pro(lems
arise !on!ernin the riht of the state to appeal in a !riminal !ase) As a eneral
r$le, the prose!$tion !annot appeal or (rin error pro!eedins from a /$dment in
favor of the defendant in a !riminal !ase in the a(sen!e of a stat$te !learly
!onferrin that riht) The pro(lem !omes into sharper fo!$s when the defendant
!ontends, in effe!t, that the prose!$tion is attemptin to a!!omplish (y the writ
what it !o$ld not do (y appeal, and that his !onstit$tional rihts are (ein th$s
en!roa!hed $pon)
*enerally, $nder modern !onstit$tions and stat$tes, provisions are availa(le
as $ides to the !o$rt in determinin the standin of the prose!$tion to se!$re
(y certiorari a review of a lower !o$rt de!ision in a !riminal !ase whi!h has
favored the defendant) #n most instan!es, provisions settin forth the s!ope and
f$n!tion of certiorari are fo$nd toether with those relatin to the riht of the state
to appeal or (rin error in !riminal matters) There is some indi!ation that !o$rts
view the writ of certiorari as an appeal in itself where the appli!ant shows that
there is no other ade-$ate remedy availa(le, and it is not $n!ommon to find
lan$ae in !ases to the effe!t that the state sho$ld not (e permitted to
a!!omplish (y certiorari what it !annot do (y appeal) Th$s, if a /$dment so$ht
to (e reviewed was one entered after an a!-$ittal (y a /$ry or the dis!hare of
the a!!$sed on the merits (y the trial !o$rt, the standin of the prose!$tion to
review it (y certiorari is far more li:ely to (e denied than if it were s$!h an order
as one s$stainin a dem$rrer to, or -$ashin the indi!tment, or rantin a motion
for arrest of /$dment after a verdi!t of $ilty)
*OLLO VS /AV,/, GR NO, 161661, OCO(ER 16, 2011
FACTS: Petitioner is a former S$pervisin Personnel Spe!ialist of the CSC
Reional Offi!e 6o) #? and also the Offi!er"in"Chare of the P$(li! Assistan!e
and 'iaison %ivision (PA'%) $nder the HMamamayan Muna Hindi Mamaya NaI
proram of the CSC) On =an$ary 5, 177; at aro$nd 1:57 p)m), an $nsined
letter"!omplaint addressed to respondent CSC Chairperson Farina Constantino"
%avid whi!h was mar:ed HConfidentialI and sent thro$h a !o$rier servi!e ('&C)
from a !ertain HAlan San Pas!$alI of &aon Silan, Caloo!an City, was re!eived
(y the #nterated Re!ords ,anaement Offi!e (#R,O) at the CSC Central Offi!e)
Followin offi!e pra!ti!e in whi!h do!$ments mar:ed HConfidentialI are left
$nopened and instead sent to the addressee, the aforesaid letter was iven
dire!tly to Chairperson %avid) Chairperson %avid immediately formed a team of
fo$r personnel with (a!:ro$nd in information te!hnoloy (#T), and iss$ed a
memo dire!tin them to !ond$!t an investiation and spe!ifi!ally Hto (a!: $p all
the files in the !omp$ters fo$nd in the ,amamayan ,$na (PA'%) and 'eal
divisions)IAfter some (riefin, the team pro!eeded at on!e to the CSC"RO#?
offi!e at Panay Aven$e, A$eDon City) @pon their arrival thereat aro$nd <:57
p)m), the team informed the offi!ials of the CSC"RO#?, respondents %ire!tor #?
'ydia Castillo (%ire!tor Castillo) and %ire!tor ### Enel(ert @nite (%ire!tor @nite)
of Chairperson %avidKs dire!tive)
The (a!:in"$p of all files in the hard dis: of !omp$ters at the PA'% and
'eal Servi!es %ivision ('S%) was witnessed (y several employees, toether
with %ire!tors Castillo and @nite who !losely monitored said a!tivity) At
aro$nd E:77 p)m), %ire!tor @nite sent te.t messaes to petitioner and the head of
'S%, who were (oth o$t of the offi!e at the time, informin them of the onoin
!opyin of !omp$ter files in their divisions $pon orders of the CSC Chair) At
aro$nd 87:77 p)m) of the same day, the investiatin team finished their
tas:) The ne.t day, all the !omp$ters in the PA'% were sealed and se!$red for
the p$rpose of preservin all the files stored therein) Several dis:ettes
!ontainin the (a!:"$p files so$r!ed from the hard dis: of PA'% and 'S%
!omp$ters were t$rned over to Chairperson %avid) The !ontents of the dis:ettes
were e.amined (y the CSCKs Offi!e for 'eal Affairs (O'A)) #t was fo$nd that
most of the files in the 8; dis:ettes !ontainin files !opied from the !omp$ter
assined to and (ein $sed (y the petitioner, n$m(erin a(o$t 07 to 01
do!$ments, were draft pleadins or letters in !onne!tion with administrative
!ases in the CSC and other tri($nals) On the (asis of this findin, Chairperson
%avid iss$ed the Show"Ca$se Order dated =an$ary 88, 177;, re-$irin the
petitioner, who had one on e.tended leave, to s$(mit his e.planation or
!o$nter"affidavit within five days from noti!e) Petitioner filed his Comment,
denyin that he is the person referred to in the anonymo$s letter"!omplaint whi!h
had no atta!hments to it, (e!a$se he is not a lawyer and neither is he HlawyerinI
for people with !ases in the CSC) 4e a!!$sed CSC offi!ials of !ond$!tin a
Hfishin e.peditionI when they $nlawf$lly !opied and printed personal files in his
!omp$ter, and s$(se-$ently as:in him to s$(mit his !omment whi!h violated his
riht aainst self"in!rimination) 4e asserted that he had protested the $nlawf$l
ta:in of his !omp$ter done while he was on leave, !itin the letter dated
=an$ary G, 177; in whi!h he informed %ire!tor Castillo that the files in his
!omp$ter were his personal files and those of his sister, relatives, friends and
some asso!iates and that he is not a$thoriDin their sealin, !opyin, d$pli!atin
and printin as these wo$ld violate his !onstit$tional riht to priva!y and
prote!tion aainst self"in!rimination and warrantless sear!h and seiD$re) 4e
pointed o$t that tho$h overnment property, the temporary $se and ownership
of the !omp$ter iss$ed $nder a ,emorand$m of Re!eipt (,R) is !eded to the
employee who may e.er!ise all attri($tes of ownership, in!l$din its $se for
personal p$rposes) As to the anonymo$s letter, petitioner ar$ed that it is not
a!tiona(le as it failed to !omply with the re-$irements of a formal !omplaint
$nder the @niform R$les on Administrative Cases in the Civil Servi!e
(@RACC)) #n view of the illeal sear!h, the filesMdo!$ments !opied from his
!omp$ter witho$t his !onsent is th$s inadmissi(le as eviden!e, (ein Hfr$its of a
poisono$s tree)I
Petitioner filed an Omni($s ,otion (For Re!onsideration, to %ismiss
andMor to %efer) assailin the formal !hare as witho$t (asis havin pro!eeded
from an illeal sear!h whi!h is (eyond the a$thority of the CSC Chairman, s$!h
power pertainin solely to the !o$rt) Petitioner reiterated that he never aided any
people with pendin !ases at the CSC and alleed that those files fo$nd in his
!omp$ter were prepared not (y him ($t (y !ertain persons whom he permitted,
at one time or another, to ma:e $se of his !omp$ter o$t of !lose asso!iation or
friendship) Atta!hed to the motion were the affidavit of Atty) Pon!iano R) Solosa
who entr$sted his own files to (e :ept at petitionerKs CP@ and Atty) Eri! 6)
Estrellado, the latter (ein Atty) SolosaKs !lient who attested that petitioner had
nothin to do with the pleadins or (ill for leal fees (e!a$se in tr$th he owed
leal fees to Atty) Solosa and not to petitioner) Petitioner !ontended that the !ase
sho$ld (e deferred in view of the pre/$di!ial -$estion raised in the !riminal
!omplaint he filed (efore the Om($dsman aainst %ire!tor &$ensalida, whom
petitioner (elieves had instiated this administrative !ase) 4e also prayed for the
liftin of the preventive s$spension imposed on him) #n its Resol$tion 6o)
7;7<89 dated ,ar!h 89, 177;, the CSC denied the omni($s motion) The CSC
resolved to treat the said motion as petitionerKs answer)
On ,ar!h 80, 177;, petitioner filed an @rent Petition $nder R$le E< of
the R$les of Co$rt, do!:eted as CA"*)R) SP 6o) 9G110, assailin (oth the
=an$ary 88, 177; Show"Ca$se Order and Resol$tion 6o) 7;75G1 dated Fe(r$ary
1E, 177; as havin (een iss$ed with rave a($se of dis!retion amo$ntin to
e.!ess or total a(sen!e of /$risdi!tion) Prior to this, however, petitioner loded an
administrativeM!riminal !omplaint aainst respondents %ire!tors Ra!-$el %)*)
&$ensalida (Chief of Staff, Offi!e of the CSC Chairman) and 'ydia A) Castillo
(CSC"RO #?) (efore the Offi!e of the Om($dsman, and a separate !omplaint for
dis(arment aainst %ire!tor &$ensalida)
On April 8;, 177;, petitioner re!eived a noti!e of hearin from the CSC
settin the formal investiation of the !ase on April 57, 177;) On April 1<, 177;,
he filed in the CA an @rent ,otion for the iss$an!e of TRO and preliminary
in/$n!tion) Sin!e he failed to attend the pre"hearin !onferen!e s!hed$led
on April 57, 177;, the CSC reset the same to ,ay 8;, 177; with warnin that the
fail$re of petitioner andMor his !o$nsel to appear in the said pre"hearin
!onferen!e shall entitle the prose!$tion to pro!eed with the formal
investiation ex-parte. Petitioner moved to defer or to reset the pre"hearin
!onferen!e, !laimin that the investiation pro!eedins sho$ld (e held in
a(eyan!e pendin the resol$tion of his petition (y the CA) The CSC denied his
re-$est and aain s!hed$led the pre"hearin !onferen!e on ,ay 8G, 177; with
similar warnin on the !onse-$en!es of petitioner andMor his !o$nselKs non"
appearan!e)) This prompted petitioner to file another motion in the CA, to !ite the
respondents, in!l$din the hearin offi!er, in indire!t !ontempt)
#SS@E: 3O6 T4E 4O6ORA&'E CO@RT *R#E?O@S'B ERRE% A6%
CO,,#TTE% PA'PA&'E ERRORS #6 'A3 A,O@6T#6* TO *RA?E A&@SE
OF %#SCRET#O6 34E6 #T R@'E% T4AT PET#T#O6ER CA66OT #6?OFE 4#S
R#*4T TO PR#?ACB, TO @6REASO6A&'E SEARC4 A6% SE#2@RE, A*A#6ST
SE'F"#6CR#,#6AT#O6, &B ?#RT@E OF OFF#CE ,E,ORA6%@, 6O) 87 S)
1771, A ,ERE #6TER6A' ,E,ORA6%@, S#*6E% SO'E'B A6%
ENC'@S#?E'B &B RESPO6%E6T %A?#% A6% 6OT &B T4E CO''E*#A'
CO,,#SS#O6 CO6S#%ER#6* T4AT PO'#CB ,ATTERS #6?O'?#6*
S@&JSOTA6T#A' R#*4TS CA66OT &E CO?ERE% &B A6 OFF#CE
,E,ORA6%@, 34#C4 #S '#,#TE% TO PROCE%@RA' A6% RO@T#6ARB
#6STR@CT#O6)
4E'%: Petitioner did not allee that he had a separate en!losed offi!e whi!h he
did not share with anyone, or that his offi!e was always lo!:ed and not open to
other employees or visitors) 6either did he allee that he $sed passwords or
adopted any means to prevent other employees from a!!essin his !omp$ter
files) On the !ontrary, he s$(mits that (ein in the p$(li! assistan!e offi!e of the
CSC"RO#?, he normally wo$ld have visitors in his offi!e li:e friends, asso!iates
and even $n:nown people, whom he even allowed to $se his !omp$ter whi!h to
him seemed a trivial re-$est) 4e des!ri(ed his offi!e as Hf$ll of people, his
friends, $n:nown peopleI and that in the past 11 years he had (een dis!harin
his f$n!tions at the PA'%, he is Hpersonally assistin in!omin !lients, re!eivin
do!$ments, draftin !ases on appeals, in !hare of a!!omplishment
report, Mamamayan Muna Proram, P$(li! Se!tor @nionism, Corre!tion of
name, a!!reditation of servi!e, and hardly had anytime for himself alone, that in
fa!t he stays in the offi!e as a payin !$stomer)I A sear!h (y a overnment
employer of an employeeKs offi!e is /$stified at in!eption when there are
reasona(le ro$nds for s$spe!tin that it will t$rn $p eviden!e that the employee
is $ilty of wor:"related mis!ond$!t) Th$s, in the 1770 !ase de!ided (y the @S
Co$rt of Appeals Eihth Cir!$it, it was held that where a overnment aen!yKs
!omp$ter $se poli!y prohi(ited ele!troni! messaes with pornoraphi! !ontent
and in addition e.pressly provided that employees do not have any personal
privacy rights regarding their use of the agency information systems and
technology, the overnment employee had no leitimate e.pe!tation of priva!y
as to the $se and !ontents of his offi!e !omp$ter, and therefore eviden!e fo$nd
d$rin warrantless sear!h of the !omp$ter was admissi(le in prose!$tion for
!hild pornoraphy) #n that !ase, the defendant employeeKs !omp$ter hard drive
was first remotely e.amined (y a !omp$ter information te!hni!ian after his
s$pervisor re!eived !omplaints that he was ina!!essi(le and had !opied and
distri($ted non"wor:"related e"mail messaes thro$ho$t the offi!e) 3hen the
s$pervisor !onfirmed that defendant had $sed his !omp$ter to a!!ess the
prohi(ited we(sites, in !ontravention of the e.press poli!y of the aen!y, his
!omp$ter tower and floppy dis:s were ta:en and e.amined) A formal
administrative investiation ens$ed and later sear!h warrants were se!$red (y
the poli!e department) The initial remote sear!h of the hard drive of petitionerKs
!omp$ter, as well as the s$(se-$ent warrantless sear!hes was held as valid
$nder the OConnor r$lin that a p$(li! employer !an investiate wor:"related
mis!ond$!t so lon as any sear!h is /$stified at in!eption and is reasona(ly
related in s!ope to the !ir!$mstan!es that /$stified it in the first pla!e) The Co$rt
is not $naware of o$r de!ision in nonymous !etter-Complaint against tty.
Miguel Morales" Cler# of Court" Metropolitan $rial Court of Manila involvin a
(ran!h !ler: (Atty) ,orales) who was investiated on the (asis of an anonymo$s
letter allein that he was !ons$min his wor:in ho$rs filin and attendin to
personal !ases, $sin offi!e s$pplies, e-$ipment and $tilities) The OCA
!ond$!ted a spot investiation aided (y 6&# aents) The team was a(le to
a!!ess Atty) ,oralesK personal !omp$ter and print two do!$ments stored in its
hard drive, whi!h t$rned o$t to (e two pleadins, one filed in the CA and another
in the RTC of ,anila, (oth in the name of another lawyer) Atty) ,oralesK !omp$ter
was seiDed and ta:en in !$stody of the OCA ($t was later ordered released on
his motion, ($t with order to the ,#SO to first retrieve the files stored therein) The
OCA disareed with the report of the #nvestiatin =$de that there was no
eviden!e to s$pport the !hare aainst Atty) ,orales as no one from the OCC
personnel who were interviewed wo$ld ive a !ateori!al and positive statement
affirmin the !hares aainst Atty) ,orales, alon with other !o$rt personnel also
!hared in the same !ase) The OCA re!ommended that Atty) ,orales sho$ld (e
fo$nd $ilty of ross mis!ond$!t)The Co$rt %n &anc held that while Atty) ,orales
may have fallen short of the e.a!tin standards re-$ired of every !o$rt
employee, the Co$rt !annot $se the eviden!e o(tained from his personal
!omp$ter aainst him for it violated his !onstit$tional riht aainst $nreasona(le
sear!hes and seiD$res) The Co$rt fo$nd no eviden!e to s$pport the !laim of OCA
that they were a(le to o(tain the s$(/e!t pleadins with the !onsent of Atty)
,orales, as in fa!t the latter immediately filed an administrative !ase aainst the
persons who !ond$!ted the spot investiation, -$estionin the validity of the
investiation and spe!ifi!ally invo:in his !onstit$tional riht aainst
$nreasona(le sear!h and seiD$re) And as there is no other eviden!e, apart from
the pleadins, retrieved from the $nd$ly !onfis!ated personal !omp$ter of Atty)
,orales, to hold him administratively lia(le, the Co$rt had no !hoi!e ($t to
dismiss the !hares aainst him for ins$ffi!ien!y of eviden!e)
*EO*LE VS .AR,, 103 SCRA 57 310014
FACTS: A!!$sed"appellant went to a forwardin aen!y to send fo$r pa!:aes
to a friend in 2$ri!h) #nitially, the a!!$sed was as:ed (y the proprietress if the
pa!:aes !an (e e.amined) 4owever, he ref$sed) &efore deliverin said
pa!:aes to the &$rea$ of C$stoms and the &$rea$ of Posts, the h$s(and of the
proprietress opened said (o.es for final inspe!tion) From that inspe!tion,
in!l$ded in the standard operatin pro!ed$re and o$t of !$riosity, he too: several
rams of its !ontents) 4e (ro$ht a letter and the said sample to the 6ational
&$rea$ of #nvestiation) 3hen the 6&# was informed that the rest of the shipment
was still in his offi!e, three aents went (a!: with him) #n their presen!e, the
h$s(and totally opened the pa!:aes) Afterwards, the 6&# too: !$stody of said
pa!:aes) The !ontents , after e.amination (y forensi! !hemists, were fo$nd to
(e mari/$ana flowerin tops)
The appellant, while !laimin his mail at the Central Post Offi!e, was invited (y
the aents for -$estionin) 'ater on, the trial !o$rt fo$nd him $ilty of violation of
the %anero$s %r$s A!t)
#SS@E: 3O6 the items admitted in the sear!hed illeally sear!hed and seiDed)
3O6 !$stodial investiation properly applied)
3O6 the trial !o$rt not ive !reden!e to the e.planation of the appellant on how
said pa!:aes !ame to his possession)
4E'%: 6o) HThe !ase at (ar ass$mes a pe!$liar !hara!ter sin!e the eviden!e
so$ht to (e e.!l$ded was primarily dis!overed and o(tained (y a private
person, a!tin in a private !apa!ity and witho$t the intervention and parti!ipation
of State a$thorities) @nder the !ir!$mstan!es, !an a!!$sedMappellant validly
!laim that his !onstit$tional riht aainst $nreasona(le sear!hes and seiD$re has
(een violated) Stated otherwise, may an a!t of a private individ$al, alleedly in
violation of appellantPs !onstit$tional rihts, (e invo:ed aainst the State) #n the
a(sen!e of overnmental interferen!e, the li(erties $aranteed (y the
Constit$tion !annot (e invo:ed aainst the State) #t was ,r) =o( Reyes, the
proprietor of the forwardin aen!y, who made sear!hMinspe!tion of the
pa!:aes) Said inspe!tion was reasona(le and a standard operatin pro!ed$re
on the part of ,r) Reyes as a pre!a$tionary meas$re (efore delivery of pa!:aes
to the &$rea$ of C$stoms or the &$rea$ of Posts) Se!ond, the mere presen!e of
the 6&# aents did not !onvert the reasona(le sear!h effe!ted (y Reyes into a
warrantless sear!h and seiD$re pros!ri(ed (y the Constit$tion) ,erely to o(serve
and loo: at that whi!h is in plain siht is not a sear!h) 4avin o(served that
whi!h is open, where no trespass has (een !ommitted in aid thereof, is not
sear!h)I
6o) HThe law enfor!ers testified that a!!$sedMappellant was informed of
his !onstit$tional rihts) #t is pres$med that they have re$larly performed their
d$ties (See) <(m), R$le 858) and their testimonies sho$ld (e iven f$ll faith and
!reden!e, there (ein no eviden!e to the !ontrary)I
6o) HAppellant sined the !ontra!t as the owner and shipper thereof
ivin more weiht to the pres$mption that thins whi!h a person possesses, or
e.er!ises a!ts of ownership over, are owned (y him (Se!) < J/O, R$le 858)) At this
point, appellant is therefore estopped to !laim otherwise)I