Howey Test - Investment Contract

          The United States Supreme Court held in Securities and Exchange Commission v. W.J. Howey Co.  that, for an investment contract to exist, the following elements, referred to as the Howey test must concur: (1) a contract, transaction, or scheme; (2) an investment of money; (3) investment is made in a common enterprise; (4) expectation of profits; and (5) profits arising primarily from the efforts of others.   Thus, to sustain the SEC position in this case, PCI’s scheme or contract with its buyers must have all these elements.

          The CA is right in ruling that the last requisite in the Howey test is lacking in the marketing scheme that PCI has adopted.  Evidently, it is PCI that expects profit from the network marketing of its products.  PCI is correct in saying that the US$234 it gets from its clients is merely a consideration for the sale of the websites that it provides. 

Venue of Perjury

Based on these considerations, we hold that our ruling in Sy Tiong is more in accord with Article 183 of the RPC and Section 15(a), Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. To reiterate for the guidance of the Bar and the Bench, the crime of perjury committed through the making of a false affidavit under Article 183 of the RPC is committed at the time the affiant subscribes and swears to his or her affidavit since it is at that time that all the elements of the crime of perjury are executed. When the crime is committed through false testimony under oath in a proceeding that is neither criminal nor civil, venue is at the place where the testimony under oath is given. If in lieu of or as supplement to the actual testimony made in a proceeding that is neither criminal nor civil, a written sworn statement is submitted, venue may either be at the place where the sworn statement is submitted or where the oath was taken as the taking of the oath and the submission are both material ingredients of the crime committed. In all cases, determination of venue shall be based on the acts alleged in the Information to be constitutive of the crime committed (UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES AND DESI TOMAS, PETITIONERS, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 192565, February 28, 2012).

Ownership of Thing Stolen Immaterial

Moreover, we agree with the CA when it gave short shrift to petitioner’s argument that full ownership of the thing stolen needed to be established first before she could be convicted of qualified theft. As correctly held by the CA, the subject of the crime of theft is any personal property belonging to another. Hence, as long as the property taken does not belong to the accused who has a valid claim thereover, it is immaterial whether said offender stole it from the owner, a mere possessor, or even a thief of the property (Anita L. Miranda Vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 176298. January 25, 2012).

Liability for Non-Deployment

Applying the rules on actual damages, Article 2199 of the New Civil Code provides that one is entitled to an adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved. Respondent is thus liable to pay petitioner actual damages in the form of the loss of nine (9) months’ worth of salary as provided in the contract. This is but proper because of the non-deployment of respondent without just cause (Stolt-Nielsen Transporation Group, Inc., et al. Vs. Sulpecio Modequillo, G.R. No. 177498. January 18, 2012).

Surety

The main issue to be resolved is one of first impression: whether a surety is liable to the creditor in the absence of a written contract with the principal.

A surety contract is merely a collateral one, its basis is the principal contract or undertaking which it secures. Necessarily, the stipulations in such principal agreement must at least be communicated or made known to the surety particularly in this case where the bond expressly guarantees the payment of respondent’s fuel products withdrawn by Fumitechniks in accordance with the terms and conditions of their agreement. The bond specifically makes reference to a written agreement. It is basic that if the terms of a contract are clear and leave no doubt upon the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of its stipulations shall control. Moreover, being an onerous undertaking, a surety agreement is strictly construed against the creditor, and every doubt is resolved in favor of the solidary debtor. Having accepted the bond, respondent as creditor must be held bound by the recital in the surety bond that the terms and conditions of its distributorship contract be reduced in writing or at the very least communicated in writing to the surety. Such non-compliance by the creditor (respondent) impacts not on the validity or legality of the surety contract but on the creditor’s right to demand performance (First Lepanto-Taisho Insurance Corporation (now known as FLT Prime Insurance Corporation) Vs. Chevron Philippines, inc. (formerly known as Caltex Philippines, Inc.), G.R. No. 177839. January 18, 2011)

Referee Not an Employee

We agree with respondents that once in the playing court, the referees exercise their own independent judgment, based on the rules of the game, as to when and how a call or decision is to be made. The referees decide whether an infraction was committed, and the PBA cannot overrule them once the decision is made on the playing court. The referees are the only, absolute, and final authority on the playing court. Respondents or any of the PBA officers cannot and do not determine which calls to make or not to make and cannot control the referee when he blows the whistle because such authority exclusively belongs to the referees. The very nature of petitioner’s job of officiating a professional basketball game undoubtedly calls for freedom of control by respondents.

Moreover, the following circumstances indicate that petitioner is an independent contractor: (1) the referees are required to report for work only when PBA games are scheduled, which is three times a week spread over an average of only 105 playing days a year, and they officiate games at an average of two hours per game; and (2) the only deductions from the fees received by the referees are withholding taxes.

In other words, unlike regular employees who ordinarily report for work eight hours per day for five days a week, petitioner is required to report for work only when PBA games are scheduled or three times a week at two hours per game. In addition, there are no deductions for contributions to the Social Security System, Philhealth or Pag-Ibig, which are the usual deductions from employees’ salaries. These undisputed circumstances buttress the fact that petitioner is an independent contractor, and not an employee of respondents (Jose Mel Bernante Vs. Philippine Basketball Association, et al., G.R. No. 192084. September 14, 2011).

Search of Office Computer

Applying the analysis and principles announced in O’Connor and Simons to the case at bar, we now address the following questions: (1) Did petitioner have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his office and computer files?; and (2) Was the search authorized by the CSC Chair, the copying of the contents of the hard drive on petitioner’s computer reasonable in its inception and scope?

In this inquiry, the relevant surrounding circumstances to consider include “(1) the employee’s relationship to the item seized; (2) whether the item was in the immediate control of the employee when it was seized; and (3) whether the employee took actions to maintain his privacy in the item.” These factors are relevant to both the subjective and objective prongs of the reasonableness inquiry, and we consider the two questions together. Thus, where the employee used a password on his computer, did not share his office with co-workers and kept the same locked, he had a legitimate expectation of privacy and any search of that space and items located therein must comply with the Fourth Amendment.

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. On the contrary, he submits that being in the public assistance office of the CSC-ROIV, he normally would have visitors in his office like friends, associates and even unknown people, whom he even allowed to use his computer which to him seemed a trivial request. He described his office as “full of people, his friends, unknown people” and that in the past 22 years he had been discharging his functions at the PALD, he is “personally assisting incoming clients, receiving documents, drafting cases on appeals, in charge of accomplishment report, Mamamayan Muna Program, Public Sector Unionism, Correction of name, accreditation of service, and hardly had anytime for himself alone, that in fact he stays in the office as a paying customer.” Under this scenario, it can hardly be deduced that petitioner had such expectation of privacy that society would recognize as reasonable.

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, 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.

As to the second point of inquiry on the reasonableness of the search conducted on petitioner’s computer, we answer in the affirmative.

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.

Under the facts obtaining, the search conducted on petitioner’s computer was justified at its inception and scope (Pollo v. Constantino-David, G.R. No. 181881. October 18, 2011).