50. VIVARES VS. ST.

THERESA'S COLLEGE (GR No 202666 September 29, 2014)

The writ of habeas data is not only confined to cases of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances - Section 2
of the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data states who may file for such action Any aggrieved party may file a
petition for the writ of habeas data. However, in cases of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances, the
petition may be filed by: (a) Any member of the immediate family of the aggrieved party, namely: the spouse, children
and parents; or (b) Any ascendant, descendant or collateral relative of the aggrieved party within the fourth civil
degree of consanguinity or affinity, in default of those mentioned in the preceding paragraph. (emphasis supplied)

FACTS:
This case involves graduating students of the STC-Cebu City; wherein, the students involved posted
pictures on their Facebook account of them wearing no shirt, but only brassieres from waist up. Said photos were
taken while they were changing into their swimsuits for a beach party. The said photos were reported to the STCs
computer teacher, named Mylene Rheza Escudero. Escudero asked several of her students to show her other
photos of Julia and Julianne, above-mentioned graduating students, they saw photos of: them along the streets of
Cebu wearing clothing which shows their black brassieres (duh, Sinulog? Hello?); them drinking hard liquor and
smoking cigarettes inside a bar (Private property OUTSIDE school premises); and that their Facebook accounts were
accessible to any Facebook user.
Upon discovery thereof, Escudero reported the matter to the school authorities. The poor students involved
were investigated and were barred to attend their high school graduation rites which is experienced by a person once
in their lifetime. Heartless.

A case was filed against the STC and its officials for Injunction and Damages. Injunction as to the order of the school
not to allow the poor children to attend their graduation rites. A petition for the issuance of the writ of habeas data was
also filed. Petitioners (Parents of the students involved) assert that the privacy of the children were unlawfully
invaded. Since the Facebook accounts of the children are set at Friends Only; That the photos were owned by the
ladies, thus cannot be used and reproduced without their consent. Old hag, however, violated this by saving digital
copies and subsequently showed them to the STCs officials.

RTC issued the writ and directed the respondents to file their verified written return within 5 working days from
service of the writ.
Respondent denied the petitioners allegation, among others, because there can be no violation of their right to
privacy as there is no reasonable expectation of privacy on Facebook.

RTC dismissed the petition for habeas data.

ISSUE:
Whether the writ of habeas data is a proper remedy?

HELD:
No.
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 data or information regarding the person, family, home and
correspondence of the aggrieved party.

PURPOSE:
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 ones right to the truth and to informational
privacy.

THE WRIT OF HABEAS DATA IS NOT ONLY CONFINED TO CASES OF EXTRALEGAL KILLINGS AND
ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCES.
Section 2 of the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data

Sec. 2. Who May File. Any aggrieved party may file a petition for the writ of habeas data. However, in
cases of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances, the petition may be filed by: (a) Any member of the
immediate family of the aggrieved party, namely: the spouse, children and parents; or (b) Any ascendant, descendant
or collateral relative of the aggrieved party within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity, in default of those
mentioned in the preceding paragraph. (emphasis supplied)

Had the framers of the Rule intended to narrow the operation of the writ only to extralegal killings or
enforced disappearances, the above underscored portion of Section 2, a variance of habeas data situations, would
not have been made.
 It is designed to safeguard individual freedom from abuse in the information age.

RESPONDENT CONTENDS THAT IT IS NOT AN ENTITY ENGAGED IN THE GATHERING, COLLETING OR

STORING OF DATA OR INFORMATION REGARDING THE PERSON, FAMILY, HOME AND CORRESPONDENCE
OF THE AGGRIEVED PARTY. -THIS IS ERRONEOUS.
Such individual need not be in the business of such.

To engage in something is different from undertaking a business endeavor. To engage means to do or

take part in something. It does not necessarily mean that the activity must be done in pursuit of a business. What
matters is that the person or entity must be gathering, collecting or storing said data or information about the
aggrieved party or his or her family. Regularity is immaterial.

THREE STRANDS OF RIGHT TO PRIVACY:

1. Locational/Situational
2. Informational (case at bar)
3. Decisional

RIGHT TO PRIVACY WAS NOT VIOLATED because:

1. Facebook has privacy safeguard tools.
2. Utilization of this tools is the manifestation, in the cyber world, of the users invocation of his right to
informational privacy.
That the photos are viewable by friends only does not necessarily bolsters the petitioners contention. It is well
emphasize at this point that setting a posts or profile details to Friends is no assurance that it can no longer be
viewed by another user who is not Facebook friends with the source of the content.

The users own Facebook friend can share said content or tag his or her own Facebook friend thereto, regardless of
whether the user tagged by the latter is Facebook friends or not with the former.

Prepared by: Ma. Richelle G. Semetara

51. Gen. Razon vs. Tagitis (G.R. No. 182498, December 3 2009)

On the test for the sufficiency for a petition for writ of amparo:
To read the Rules of Court requirement on pleadings while addressing the unique Amparo
situation, the test in reading the petition should be determine whether it contains the details available to the one filing
the petition under the circumstances while presenting a cause of action showing a violation of the victim's rights to
life, liberty and security through State or private party action.

FACTS:

Tagitis, a consultant for the World Bank and the Senior Honorary Counselor for the Islamic Development
Bank (IDB) Scholarship Programme, was last seen in Jolo, Sulu. More than a month after his disappearance, the
respondent filed a Petition for the Writ of Amparo (petition) with the CA through her Attorney-in-Fact, Atty. Felipe P.
Arcilla, directed against Lt. Gen. Alexander Yano, et. al. The petition stated that Engr. Tagitis went out of the pension
house to take his early lunch but while out on the street, a couple of burly men believed to be police intelligence
operatives, forcibly took him and boarded the latter on a motor vehicle then sped away without the knowledge of his
student and according to a reliable source; that he was in the custody of police intelligence operatives, specifically
with the CIDG, PNP Zamboanga City, being held against his will in an earnest attempt of the police to involve and
connect Engr. Tagitis with the different terrorist groups; That the respondent filed a complaint with the PNP Police
Station in the ARMM in Cotobato and in Jolo, but instead of helping her she was told of an intriguing tale by the police
that her husband, subject of the petition, was not missing but was with another woman having good time somewhere,
which is a clear indication of the refusal to help and provide police assistance in locating her missing husband. The
petitioners mainly dispute the sufficiency in form and substance of the Amparo petition filed before the CA. Petitioners
contend that the petition violated Section 5(c), (d), and (e) of the Amparo Rule.

ISSUE:

Does the Amparo Rule intended that the petition be complete in every detail in stating the threatened or
actual violation of a victims rights for it to be given due course by the court?

HELD:

No.

The Court ruled in negative. The framers of the Amparo Rule never intended Section 5(c) to be complete in
every detail in stating the threatened or actual violation of a victims rights. As in any other initiatory pleading, the
pleader must of course state the ultimate facts constituting the cause of action, omitting the evidentiary details. In an
Amparo petition, however, this requirement must be read in light of the nature and purpose of the proceeding, which
addresses a situation of uncertainty; the petitioner may not be able to describe with certainty how the victim exactly
disappeared, or who actually acted to kidnap, abduct or arrest him or her, or where the victim is detained, because
these information may purposely be hidden or covered up by those who caused the disappearance. In this type of
situation, to require the level of specificity, detail and precision that the petitioners apparently want to read into the
Amparo Rule is to make this Rule a token gesture of judicial concern for violations of the constitutional rights to life,
liberty and security. To read the Rules of Court requirement on pleadings while addressing the unique Amparo
situation, the test in reading the petition should be to determine whether it contains the details available to the
petitioner under the circumstances, while presenting a cause of action showing a violation of the victims rights to life,
liberty and security through State or private party action. The petition should likewise be read in its totality, rather than
in terms of its isolated component parts, to determine if the required elements namely, of the disappearance, the
State or private action, and the actual or threatened violations of the rights to life, liberty or security are present.

Prepared by: Ma. Richelle G. Semetara