Laws & Jurisprudence
Issuance Of Writ Of Habeas Data Requires The Existence Of A Nexus Between The Right To Privacy And The Right To Life, Liberty Or Security
11:42 PM
Julia
and Julienne, both minors, were graduating high school students at
St. Theresa's College (STC). While changing into their swimsuits for a beach party they were about
to attend, Julia and Julienne, along with several others, took
digital pictures of themselves clad only in their undergarments.
These pictures were then uploaded by Angela on her Facebook profile.
Back
at the school, Escudero, a computer teacher at STC’s high school
department, learned from her students that some seniors at STC posted
pictures online, depicting themselves from the waist up, dressed only
in brassieres. Escudero then asked her students if they knew who the
girls in the photos are. In turn, they readily identified Julia,
Julienne, and Chloe, among others. Using STC’s computers,
Escudero’s students logged in to their respective personal Facebook
accounts and showed her photos of the identified students.
Upon
discovery, Escudero reported the matter and, through one of her
student’s Facebook page, showed the photos to Tigol, STC’s
Discipline-in-Charge, for appropriate action. Thereafter, following
an investigation, STC found the identified students to have deported
themselves in a manner proscribed by the school’s Student Handbook.
As part of their penalty, they were barred from joining the
commencement exercises.
A
week before graduation, Angela’s mother, Dr. Tan, filed a Petition
for Injunction and Damages before the RTC of Cebu City against STC.
Tan prayed that defendants therein be enjoined from implementing the
sanction that precluded Angela from joining the commencement
exercises. Petitioner Vivares, the mother of Julia, joined the fray
as an intervenor. The RTC issued a temporary restraining order (TRO)
allowing the students to attend the graduation ceremony, to which STC
filed a motion for reconsideration. Despite the issuance of the
TRO, STC, nevertheless, barred the sanctioned students from
participating in the graduation rites, arguing that, on the date of
the commencement exercises, its adverted motion for reconsideration
on the issuance of the TRO remained unresolved.
Thereafter,
petitioners filed before the RTC a Petition for the Issuance of a
Writ of Habeas Data. The RTC rendered a Decision dismissing the
petition for habeas data. Petitioners then filed Petition for Review
on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court before the Supreme
Court.
ISSUE:
Whether
or not there was indeed an actual or threatened violation of the
right to privacy in the life, liberty, or security of the minors
involved in this case to warrant the issuance of the Writ of Habeas
Data.
RULING:
The
writ of habeas data is a remedy available to any person whose right to
privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by an
unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a
private individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or
storing of data or information regarding the person, family, home and
correspondence of the aggrieved party. It is an independent and
summary remedy designed to protect the image, privacy, honor,
information, and freedom of information of an individual, and to
provide a forum to enforce one’s right to the truth and to
informational privacy. It seeks to protect a person’s right to
control information regarding oneself, particularly in instances in
which such information is being collected through unlawful means in
order to achieve unlawful ends.
In
developing the writ of habeas data, the Court aimed to protect an
individual’s right to informational privacy, among others. A
comparative law scholar has, in fact, defined habeas data as "a
procedure designed to safeguard individual freedom from abuse in the
information age." The writ, however, will not issue on the basis
merely of an alleged unauthorized access to information about a
person. Availment of the writ requires the existence of a nexus
between the right to privacy on the one hand, and the right to life,
liberty or security on the other. Thus, the existence of a person’s
right to informational privacy and a showing, at least by substantial
evidence, of an actual or threatened violation of the right to
privacy in life, liberty or security of the victim are indispensable
before the privilege of the writ may be extended.
In
this instant case, respondents did not violate petitioner's right to
privacy. Before one can have an expectation of privacy in his or her
OSN activity, it is first necessary that said user, in this case the
children of petitioners,manifest the intention to keep certain posts
private, through the employment of measures to prevent access thereto
or to limit its visibility. And this intention can materialize in
cyberspace through the utilization of the OSN’s privacy tools. In
other words, utilization of these privacy tools is the
manifestation,in cyber world, of the user’s invocation of his or
her right to informational privacy. Therefore, a Facebook user who
opts to make use of a privacy tool to grant or deny access to his or
her post or profile detail should not be denied the informational
privacy right which necessarily accompanies said choice.
Even
assuming that the photos in issue are visible only to the sanctioned
students’ Facebook friends, respondent STC can hardly be taken to
task for the perceived privacy invasion since it was the minors’
Facebook friends who showed the pictures to Tigol. Respondents were
mere recipients of what were posted. They did not resort to any
unlawful means of gathering the information as it was voluntarily
given to them by persons who had legitimate access to the said posts.
Clearly, the fault, if any, lies with the friends of the minors.
Curiously enough, however, neither the minors nor their parents
imputed any violation of privacy against the students who showed the
images to Escudero.
In
sum, there can be no quibbling that the images in question, or to be
more precise, the photos of minor students scantily clad, are
personal in nature, likely to affect, if indiscriminately circulated,
the reputation of the minors enrolled in a conservative institution.
However, the records are bereft of any evidence, other than bare
assertions that they utilized Facebook’s privacy settings to make
the photos visible only to them or to a select few. Without proof
that they placed the photographs subject of this case within the
ambit of their protected zone of privacy, they cannot now insist that
they have an expectation of privacy with respect to the photographs
in question.
Had
it been proved that the access to the pictures posted were limited to
the original uploader, through the "Me Only" privacy
setting, or that the user’s contact list has been screened to limit
access to a select few, through the "Custom" setting, the
result may have been different, for in such instances, the intention
to limit access to the particular post, instead of being broadcasted
to the public at large or all the user’s friends en masse, becomes
more manifest and palpable.
In
finding that respondent STC and its officials did not violate the
minors' privacy rights, The Court finds no cogent reason to disturb
the findings and case disposition of the court lower court.
G.R.
No. 202666,
September 29, 2014
RHONDA
AVE S. VIVARES and SPS. MARGARITA and DAVID SUZARA, Petitioners,
vs. ST.
THERESA'S COLLEGE, MYLENE RHEZA T. ESCUDERO, and JOHN DOES,
Respondents.
VELASCO,
JR., J.:
The author takes no responsibility for the validity, correctness and result of this work. The information provided is not a legal advice and it should not be used as a substitute for a competent legal advice from a licensed lawyer. See the disclaimer
0 comments