Philippines Supreme Court Case PDF

ConstitutionStatutesExecutive IssuancesJudicial IssuancesOther IssuancesJurisprudenceInternational Legal ResourcesAUSL Exclusive Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. 202666 September 29, 2014 RHONDA AVE S. VIVARES and SPS. MARGARITA and DAVID SUZARA...

ConstitutionStatutesExecutive IssuancesJudicial IssuancesOther IssuancesJurisprudenceInternational Legal ResourcesAUSL Exclusive Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION 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. DECISION VELASCO, JR., J.: The individual's desire for privacy is never absolute, since participation in society is an equally powerful desire. Thus each individual is continually engaged in a personal adjustment process in which he balances the desire for privacy with the desire for disclosure and communication of himself to others, in light of the environmental conditions and social norms set by the society in which he lives. - Alan Westin, Privacy and Freedom (1967) The Case Before Us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, in relation to Section 19 of A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC,1 otherwise known as the "Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data." Petitioners herein assail the July 27, 2012 Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 14 in Cebu City (RTC) in SP. Proc. No. 19251-CEB, which dismissed their habeas data petition. The Facts Nenita Julia V. Daluz (Julia) and Julienne Vida Suzara (Julienne), both minors, were, during the period material, graduating high school students at St. Theresa's College (STC), Cebu City. Sometime in January 2012, 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 Lindsay Tan (Angela) on her Facebook3 profile. Back at the school, Mylene Rheza T. Escudero (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 Lourdes Taboada (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, which include: (a) Julia and Julienne drinking hard liquor and smoking cigarettes inside a bar; and (b) Julia and Julienne along the streets of Cebu wearing articles of clothing that show virtually the entirety of their black brassieres. What is more, Escudero’s students claimed that there were times when access to or the availability of the identified students’ photos was not confined to the girls’ Facebook friends,4 but were, in fact, viewable by any Facebook user.5 Upon discovery, Escudero reported the matter and, through one of her student’s Facebook page, showed the photosto Kristine Rose Tigol (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, to wit: 1. Possession of alcoholic drinks outside the school campus; 2. Engaging in immoral, indecent, obscene or lewd acts; 3. Smoking and drinking alcoholicbeverages in public places; 4. Apparel that exposes the underwear; 5. Clothing that advocates unhealthy behaviour; depicts obscenity; contains sexually suggestive messages, language or symbols; and 6. Posing and uploading pictures on the Internet that entail ample body exposure. On March 1, 2012, Julia, Julienne, Angela, and the other students in the pictures in question, reported, as required, to the office of Sr. Celeste Ma. Purisima Pe (Sr. Purisima), STC’s high school principal and ICM6 Directress. They claimed that during the meeting, they were castigated and verbally abused by the STC officials present in the conference, including Assistant Principal Mussolini S. Yap (Yap), Roswinda Jumiller, and Tigol. What is more, Sr. Purisima informed their parents the following day that, as part of their penalty, they are barred from joining the commencement exercises scheduled on March 30, 2012. A week before graduation, or on March 23, 2012, Angela’s mother, Dr. Armenia M. Tan (Tan), filed a Petition for Injunction and Damages before the RTC of Cebu City against STC, et al., docketed as Civil Case No. CEB-38594.7 In it, Tan prayed that defendants therein be enjoined from implementing the sanction that precluded Angela from joining the commencement exercises. On March 25, 2012,petitioner Rhonda Ave Vivares (Vivares), the mother of Julia, joined the fray as an intervenor. On March 28, 2012, defendants inCivil Case No. CEB-38594 filed their memorandum, containing printed copies of the photographs in issue as annexes. That same day, 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 ofthe TRO remained unresolved. Thereafter, petitioners filed before the RTC a Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Habeas Data, docketed as SP. Proc. No. 19251-CEB8 on the basis of the following considerations: 1. The photos of their children in their undergarments (e.g., bra) were taken for posterity before they changed into their swimsuits on the occasion of a birthday beach party; 2. The privacy setting of their children’s Facebook accounts was set at "Friends Only." They, thus, have a reasonable expectation of privacy which must be respected. 3. Respondents, being involved in the field of education, knew or ought to have known of laws that safeguard the right to privacy. Corollarily, respondents knew or ought to have known that the girls, whose privacy has been invaded, are the victims in this case, and not the offenders. Worse, after viewing the photos, the minors were called "immoral" and were punished outright; 4. The photos accessed belong to the girls and, thus, cannot be used and reproduced without their consent. Escudero, however, violated their rights by saving digital copies of the photos and by subsequently showing them to STC’s officials. Thus, the Facebook accounts of petitioners’ children were intruded upon; 5. The intrusion into the Facebook accounts, as well as the copying of information, data, and digital images happened at STC’s Computer Laboratory; and 6. All the data and digital images that were extracted were boldly broadcasted by respondents through their memorandum submitted to the RTC in connection with Civil Case No. CEB-38594. To petitioners, the interplay of the foregoing constitutes an invasion of their children’s privacy and, thus, prayed that: (a) a writ of habeas databe issued; (b) respondents be ordered to surrender and deposit with the court all soft and printed copies of the subjectdata before or at the preliminary hearing; and (c) after trial, judgment be rendered declaring all information, data, and digital images accessed, saved or stored, reproduced, spread and used, to have been illegally obtained inviolation of the children’s right to privacy. Finding the petition sufficient in form and substance, the RTC, through an Order dated July 5, 2012, issued the writ of habeas data. Through the same Order, herein respondents were directed to file their verified written return, together with the supporting affidavits, within five (5) working days from service of the writ. In time, respondents complied with the RTC’s directive and filed their verified written return, laying down the following grounds for the denial of the petition, viz: (a) petitioners are not the proper parties to file the petition; (b) petitioners are engaging in forum shopping; (c) the instant case is not one where a writ of habeas data may issue;and (d) there can be no violation of their right to privacy as there is no reasonable expectation of privacy on Facebook. Ruling of the Regional Trial Court On July 27, 2012, the RTC rendered a Decision dismissing the petition for habeas data. The dispositive portion of the Decision pertinently states: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, the Petition is hereby DISMISSED. The parties and media must observe the aforestated confidentiality. xxxx SO ORDERED.9 To the trial court, petitioners failed to prove the existence of an actual or threatened violation of the minors’ right to privacy, one of the preconditions for the issuance of the writ of habeas data. Moreover, the court a quoheld that the photos, having been uploaded on Facebook without restrictions as to who may view them, lost their privacy in some way. Besides, the RTC noted, STC gathered the photographs through legal means and for a legal purpose, that is, the implementation of the school’s policies and rules on discipline. Not satisfied with the outcome, petitioners now come before this Court pursuant to Section 19 of the Rule on Habeas Data.10 The Issues The main issue to be threshed out inthis case is whether or not a writ of habeas datashould be issued given the factual milieu. Crucial in resolving the controversy, however, is the pivotal point of 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. Our Ruling We find no merit in the petition. Procedural issues concerning the availability of the Writ of Habeas Data The writ of habeas datais 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.11 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.12 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 dataas "a procedure designed to safeguard individual freedom from abuse in the information age."13 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.14 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.15 Without an actionable entitlement in the first place to the right to informational privacy, a habeas datapetition will not prosper. Viewed from the perspective of the case at bar,this requisite begs this question: given the nature of an online social network (OSN)––(1) that it facilitates and promotes real-time interaction among millions, if not billions, of users, sans the spatial barriers,16 bridging the gap created by physical space; and (2) that any information uploaded in OSNs leavesan indelible trace in the provider’s databases, which are outside the control of the end-users––is there a right to informational privacy in OSN activities of its users? Before addressing this point, We must first resolve the procedural issues in this case. a. The writ of habeas data is not only confined to cases of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances Contrary to respondents’ submission, the Writ of Habeas Datawas not enacted solely for the purpose of complementing the Writ of Amparoin cases of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances. Section 2 of the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data provides: 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 degreeof 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 cases of extralegal killings or enforced disappearances, the above underscored portion of Section 2, reflecting a variance of habeas data situations, would not have been made. Habeas data, to stress, was designed "to safeguard individual freedom from abuse in the information age."17 As such, it is erroneous to limit its applicability to extralegal killings and enforced disappearances only. In fact, the annotations to the Rule preparedby the Committee on the Revision of the Rules of Court, after explaining that the Writ of Habeas Data complements the Writ of Amparo, pointed out that: The writ of habeas data, however, can be availed of as an independent remedy to enforce one’s right to privacy, more specifically the right to informational privacy. The remedies against the violation of such right can include the updating, rectification, suppression or destruction of the database or information or files in possession or in control of respondents.18 (emphasis Ours) Clearly then, the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Datamay also be availed of in cases outside of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances. b. Meaning of "engaged" in the gathering, collecting or storing of data or information Respondents’ contention that the habeas data writ may not issue against STC, it not being an entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data or information regarding the person, family, home and correspondence of the aggrieved party, while valid to a point, is, nonetheless, erroneous. To be sure, nothing in the Rule would suggest that the habeas data protection shall be available only against abuses of a person or entity engaged in the businessof gathering, storing, and collecting of data. As provided under Section 1 of the Rule: Section 1. Habeas Data. – The writ of habeas datais 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. (emphasis Ours) The provision, when taken in its proper context, as a whole, irresistibly conveys the idea that habeas data is a protection against unlawful acts or omissions of public officials and of private individuals or entities engaged in gathering, collecting, or storing data about the aggrieved party and his or her correspondences, or about his or her family. Such individual or entity need not be in the business of collecting or storing data. To "engage" in something is different from undertaking a business endeavour. To "engage" means "to do or take part in something."19 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. Whether such undertaking carries the element of regularity, as when one pursues a business, and is in the nature of a personal endeavour, for any other reason or even for no reason at all, is immaterial and such will not prevent the writ from getting to said person or entity. To agree with respondents’ above argument, would mean unduly limiting the reach of the writ to a very small group, i.e., private persons and entities whose business is data gathering and storage, and in the process decreasing the effectiveness of the writ asan instrument designed to protect a right which is easily violated in view of rapid advancements in the information and communications technology––a right which a great majority of the users of technology themselves are not capable of protecting. Having resolved the procedural aspect of the case, We now proceed to the core of the controversy. The right to informational privacy on Facebook a. The Right to Informational Privacy The concept of privacyhas, through time, greatly evolved, with technological advancements having an influential part therein. This evolution was briefly recounted in former Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno’s speech, The Common Right to Privacy,20 where he explained the three strands of the right to privacy, viz: (1) locational or situational privacy;21 (2) informational privacy; and (3) decisional privacy.22 Of the three, what is relevant to the case at bar is the right to informational privacy––usually defined as the right of individuals to control information about themselves.23 With the availability of numerous avenues for information gathering and data sharing nowadays, not to mention each system’s inherent vulnerability to attacks and intrusions, there is more reason that every individual’s right to control said flow of information should be protected and that each individual should have at least a reasonable expectation of privacy in cyberspace. Several commentators regarding privacy and social networking sites, however, all agree that given the millions of OSN users, "[i]n this [Social Networking] environment, privacy is no longer grounded in reasonable expectations, but rather in some theoretical protocol better known as wishful thinking."24 It is due to this notion that the Court saw the pressing need to provide for judicial remedies that would allow a summary hearing of the unlawful use of data or information and to remedy possible violations of the right to privacy.25 In the same vein, the South African High Court, in its Decision in the landmark case, H v. W,26 promulgated on January30, 2013, recognized that "[t]he law has to take into account the changing realities not only technologically but also socially or else it will lose credibility in the eyes of the people. x x x It is imperative that the courts respond appropriately to changing times, acting cautiously and with wisdom." Consistent with this, the Court, by developing what may be viewed as the Philippine model of the writ of habeas data, in effect, recognized that, generally speaking, having an expectation of informational privacy is not necessarily incompatible with engaging in cyberspace activities, including those that occur in OSNs. The question now though is up to whatextent is the right to privacy protected in OSNs? Bear in mind that informational privacy involves personal information. At the same time, the very purpose of OSNs is socializing––sharing a myriad of information,27 some of which would have otherwise remained personal. b. Facebook’s Privacy Tools: a response to the clamor for privacy in OSN activities Briefly, the purpose of an OSN is precisely to give users the ability to interact and to stay connected to other members of the same or different social media platform through