Case Title: Topic:

Vivares v. St. Theresa’s College Right to privacy

Date: September 29, 2014

Ponente: Velasco
Nature of the Case: Petition for Review on Certiorari
Petitioner: Rhonda Ave S. Vivares and Sps. Margarita and David Suzara
Respondent: St. Theresa’s College, Mylene Rheza T. Escudero and John Does.
Doctrine:

Relevant Provisions:

Facts:
 Julia and Julienne, both minors, were graduating high school students at St. Theresa’s College Cebu.
 In January 2012, along with several others, while changing into their swimsuits for a beach party they were about to attend, they took digital pictures of themselves only
in their undergarments which Angela posted on her Facebook profile.
 Escudero, a computer teacher at STC learned from her students that some seniors at STC posted such photos. She asked them if they knew who the girls were and
were readily identified as Julia, Julienne and Chloe, among others.
 Escudero reported the matter to Tigol, STC’s discipline-in-charge for appropriate action.
o STC found the identified students to have deported themselves in a manner proscribed by the Student Handbook:
 Possession of alcoholic drinks outside the school campus
 Engaging in immoral, indecent, obscene or lewd acts
 Smoking and drinking alcoholic beverages in public places
 Apparel that exposes the underwear
 Clothing that advocates unhealthy behavior
 Posing and uploading pictures on the Internet that entail ample body exposure
 The students reported to Sr. Purisima, the STC’s high school principal.
o They claimed that they were castigated and verbally abused by the STC officials
o Sr. Purisima informed their parents that as penalty, they will not be allowed to join the commencement exercises
 A week before graduation, Angela’s Mother (Dr. Tan) filed a Petition for Injunction and Damages before the RTC of Cebu against STC, praying that defendants be
enjoined from precluding Angela from joining the commencement exercises. The mother of Julia (Vivares) joined as an intervenor.
 RTC issued TRO allowing the students to attend graduation, STC filed a motion for reconsideration, and nevertheless sanctioned the students.
 Petitioners filed a Writ of Habeas Data:
o The photos of the students in their undergarments were taken for posterity
o The privacy setting was set at “Friends Only”  reasonable expectation of privacy on the part of the students
o Respondents, being involved in the field of education, ought to have known the laws that safeguard the right to privacy  girls, whose privacy are invaded, are
the victims
o Photos accessed belong to the girls  cannot be used and reproduced without their consent  Escudero violated by saving copies and subsequently showing
them to STC’s officials
 Respondents:
o Petitioners are not the proper parties
o Petitioners are engaging in forum shopping
 o Instant case in not one where a writ of habeas data may issue
o No violation of their right to privacy
 RTC: Dismissed the petition for habeas data  petitioners failed to prove the existence of an actual or threatened violation of the minor’s right to privacy

Issue 1: Ratio:
 WON there was indeed an actual or threatened violation of the right to privacy SUBSTANTIVE ISSUE: WON STC violated petitioners’ daughters’ right to privacy
in the life, liberty or security of the minors (NO) (NO)

 Right to Informational Privacy on Facebook

o The Right to Informational Privacy
 Justice Puno: There are three strands of the right to privacy:
(1) locational or situational privacy; (2) informational
privacy; (3) decisional privacy
 Right to informational privacy: right to control information
about themselves
 Due to millions of subscribers to Online Social Networks,
privacy is no longer grounded in reasonable expectation, but
rather in some theoretical protocol known as wishful
thinking.
 Up to what extent is the right to privacy protected in OSNs?
Bear in mind that informational privacy involves personal
information, yet the very purpose of OSN is socializing –
sharing a myriad of information, some of which would have
otherwise remained personal
o Facebook’s privacy tools: a response to the clamor for privacy in
OSN activities
 Purpose of OSN is precisely to give users the ability to
interact and to stay connected to other members
 Facebook connections are established through the process
of “friending” another user, so that they can view any and all
“Public” and “Friends Only” posts of the other  “Friending”
gives the “Facebook friend” access to his or her profile and
shares certain information to the latter
 STC did not violate petitioners’ daughters’ right to privacy
o Petitioners argued that the privacy settings on Facebook limit who
can see what information  gives users a subjective expectation of
privacy. COURT AGREED. HOWEVER, the Court also ruled that
before one can have an expectation of privacy on her Facebook
information, he or she must manifest an intention to keep that
information private by utilizing privacy tools.
o The manner which the school gathered the pictures cannot be
considered illegal. As it appears, it was the classmates of the
students who showed the picture to their teacher and the latter, being
the recipient of said pictures, merely delivered them to the proper
school authority and it was for a legal purpose, that is, to discipline
their students according to the standards of the school. The photos in
the case at hand were all viewable by the friends of the girls or by the
general public.

 Petitioners failed to prove their contention that respondents reproduced and

broadcasted the photographs. In fact, what petitioners attributed to
 respondents as an act of offensive disclosure was no more than the actuality
that respondents appended said photographs in their memorandum submitted
to the trial court in connection with Civil Case No. CEB-38594. These are not
tantamount to a violation of the minor’s informational privacy rights, contrary to
petitioners’ assertion.
 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.

Issue 2: Ratio:

Dispositive Portion:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated July 27, 2012 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 14 in Cebu City in SP. Proc. No.
19251-CEB is hereby AFFIRMED.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.