CASE DIGEST: VALMONTE vs BELMONTE February 13 1989

G.R No 74930

Ricardo Valmonte, Oswaldo Carbonell, Doy del Castillo, Rolado Bartolome,

Leo Obligar, Jun Gutierrez, ReynaldoBagatsing, Jun “Ninoy” Alba, Percy Lapid,
Rommel Corro and Rolando Fadul
petitioners
,
Vs.
Feliciano Belmonte JR.,
respondent
.FACTS:
Petitioner Valmonte wrote a letter to the respondent Feliciano Belmonte, then
GSIS General Manager, requesting to befurnished with the list of names of the
defunct interim and regular Batasang Pambansa including the ten (10)
oppositionmembers who were able to secure a clean loan of P 2 million each on
guaranty of Mrs. Imelda Marcos. And if such is notpossible, an access to those said
documents. Apart from Valmonte’s letter, he is stressing the premise of the
request onthe present provision of the Freedom constitution at that time which is
Art. IV, Sec. 6, that emphasizes the right of thepeople to information on matters
of public concern. Mr. Belmonte, aware that such request contains serious
legalimplications seek the help of Mr. Meynardo A. Tiro, a deputy General Counsel.
In Mr. Tiro’s reply letter, a confidentialrelationship exists between the GSIS and
all those who borrow from it, whoever they may be; that the GSIS has a duty toits
customers to preserve this confidentiality; and that it would not be proper for the
GSIS to breach this confidentialityunless so ordered by the courts.On June 26,
1986, apparently not having yet received the reply of the GSIS Deputy General
Counsel, Petitioner Valmontewrote another letter saying that for failure to receive
a reply, they are now considering themselves free to do whateveraction necessary
within the premises to pursue their desired objective in pursuance of public
interest.Separate comments were filed by respondent Belmonte and the Solicitor
General. After petitioners filed a consolidatedreply, the petition was given due
course and the parties were required to file their memoranda. The parties
havingcomplied, the case was deemed submitted for decision.In his comment,
respondent raise procedural objection to the issuance of a writ of mandamus,
among which is thatpetitioners have failed to exhaust administrative remedies.
Respondent claims that actions of the GSIS General Managerare reviewable by the
Board of Trustees of the GSIS petitioners. However, did not seek relief from the
GSIS Board of Trustees, It is therefore asserted that since administrative
remedies were not exhausted, then petitioners have no causeof action.
ISSUE:
Whether or not that Mr. Valmonte, together with his co-petitioners, are entitled
to the documents sought, by virtue of their constitutional right to information.
RULING:
The cornerstone of this republican system of government is delegation of power by
the people to the state.Governmental agencies and institutions operate within the
limits of the authority conferred by the people. Yet, like allconstitutional
guarantees, the right to information is not absolute. People’s right to information is
limited to “matters of public concern” and is further “subject to such limitations as
may be provided by law.”The GSIS is a trustee of contributions from the
government and its employees and the administrator of various insuranceprograms
for the benefit of the latter. Undeniably, its funds assume a public character.
More particularly, Secs. 5(b) and46 of P.D 1146, as amended (the Revised
Government Service Insurance act of 1977 provide for annual appropriations

for to pay for contributions, premiums , interest and other amounts payable to
GSIS by the government, as employer, aswell as the obligations which the Republic
of the Philippines assumes or guarantees to pay. Considering the nature of
itsfunds, the GSIS is expected to manage its resources with utmost prudence and
in strict compliance with the pertinentrules and regulations. It is therefore the
legitimate concern of the public to ensure that these funds are managedproperly
with end in view of maximizing the benefits that accrue to the insured government
employees. Moreover, thesupposed borrowers were members of the defunct
Batasang Pambansa who themselves appropriated funds for the GSISand were
therefore expected to be the first to see to it that the GSIS performed its tasks
with the greatest degree of fidelity and that its transactions were above
board.Respondent maintains that a confidential relationship exists between the
GSIS and its borrowers. It is argued that apolicy of confidentiality restricts
the indiscriminate dissemination of information. He further contends that in
view of theright to privacy, which is equally protected by the Constitution and by
existing laws, the documents, evidencing loantransactions of the GSIS must be
deemed outside the ambit of the right to information.There can be no doubt that
the right to privacy is constitutionally protected. In the landmark case of Morfe
vs. Mutuc,speaking through then Mr. Justice Fernando stated that ultimate and
pervasive control of the individual, in all aspects of his life, is the hallmark of the
absolute state. In contrast, a system of limited government safeguards a private
sector,which belongs to the individual, firmly distinguishing it from the public
sector, which the state can control.Apparent from the above-quoted statement of
the court in
Morfe
is that the right to privacy belongs to the individual inhis private capacity, and not
to public and the government agencies like the GSIS. Moreover, the right cannot
be invokedby juridical entities like the GSIS. A corporation has no right of privacy
in its name since the entire basis of the right toprivacy is an injury to the feelings
and sensibilities of the party and a corporation would have no such ground for
relief.Neither can the GSIS through its General manager, the respondent, invoke
the right to privacy of its borrowers. The rightis purely personal in nature, and
hence, may be invoked only by the person whose privacy is claimed to be
violated.Respondent next asserts that the documents evidencing the loan
transactions are private in nature and hence, are notcovered by the Constitutional
right to information on matters of public concern which guarantees “access to
officialrecords, and to documents, and papers pertaining to official acts,
transactions or decisions” only. Further, they arguedthat GSIS, is a governmental
corporation performing proprietary functions, are outside the coverage of the
people’sright to access to official records.This Dichotomy characterizing
government function has long been repudiated in ACCFA v. Confederation of
Unions andGovernment Corporations and Offices, the Court said that the
government, WHETHER carrying out its sovereignattributes or running some
business, discharges the SAME FUNCTION of service to the people. Consequently,
that theGSIS , in granting the loans, was exercising proprietary function would
NOT justify the exclusion of transactions from thecoverage and scope of right to
information.WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby granted, and the
respondent General Manager of the Government ServiceInsurance System is
ORDERED to allow petitioners access to documents and records evidencing loans
granted tomembers of the former Batasang Pambansa, as petitioners may specify,
subject to reasonable regulations as to time andmanner of inspection, not
incompatible with the decision, as the GSIS may deem necessary. SO ORDERED