G.R. No.

203254 October 8, 2014

DR. JOY MARGARTE LEE, Petitioner vs. P/SUPT. NERI A ILAGAN, Respondent

FACTS

Respondent Ilagan filed a petition for the issuance of Writ of Habeas Data and alleged that he and
petitioner Dr. Joy Margate Lee (Lee) were former common law partners. Sometime in July 2011, he
visited Lee’s condominium, rested for a while and thereafter, proceeded to his office. Upon arrival,
Ilagan noticed that his digital camera was missing. On August 23, 2011, Lee confronted Ilagan at the
latter's office regarding a purported sex video (subject video) she discovered from Ilagan’s camera
involving Ilagan and another woman. Ilagan denied the video and demanded Lee to return the
camera, but to no avail.  During the confrontation, Ilagan allegedly slammed Lee’s head against a
wall inside his office and walked away.

Subsequently, Lee utilized the said video as evidence in filing various complaints against Ilagan,
namely: (a) a criminal complaint for violation of Republic Act No. 9262, otherwise known as the "Anti-
Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004," before the Office of the City Prosecutor of
Makati; and (b) an administrative complaint for grave misconduct before the National Police
Commission (NAPOLCOM).  Ilagan claimed that Lee’s acts of reproducing the subject video and
threatening to distribute the same to the upper echelons of the NAPOLCOM and uploading it to the
internet violated not only his right to life, liberty, security, and privacy but also that of the other
woman, and thus, the issuance of a writ of habeas data in his favor is warranted.

ISSUE: Whether or not the issuance of a writ of habeas data is proper.

HELD: No. As defined in Section 1 of the Habeas Data Rule, the writ of habeas data now stands as "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.

The Court finds that Ilagan was not able to sufficiently allege that his right to privacy in life, liberty or
security was or would be violated through the supposed reproduction and threatened dissemination of
the subject sex video.

The petition for habeas data must adequately show that there exists a nexus between the right to
privacy on the one hand, and the right to life, liberty or security on the other. The allegations in the
petition must be supported by substantial evidence showing an actual or threatened violation of the
right to privacy in life, liberty or security of the victim.

Lee even made it clear in her testimony that the only reason why she reproduced the subject video was
to legitimately utilize the same as evidence in the criminal and administrative cases that she filed against
Ilagan.

Here, while Ilagan purports a privacy interest in the suppression of his video, he failed to explain the
connection between such interest and any violation of his right to life, liberty or security that would
warrant the issuance of a writ of habeas data.