VIVARES vs. ST.

THERESE’S COLLEGE
GR No. 202666; 29 Sept 2014

FACTS:
Angela Tan, a high school student at St. Theresa’s College (STC), uploaded on Facebook several
pictures of her and her classmates (Nenita Daluz and Julienne Suzara) wearing only their undergarments.
Thereafter, some of their classmates reported said photos to their teacher, Mylene Escudero who showed
the said pictures to STC’s Discipline-in-Charge for appropriate action.
Later, STC found Tan et al to have violated the student’s handbook and banned them from “marching” in
their graduation ceremonies.
The issue went to court but despite a TRO (temporary restraining order) granted by the Cebu RTC
enjoining the school from barring the students in the graduation ceremonies, STC still barred said
students.
Subsequently, Rhonda Vivares, mother of Nenita, and the other mothers filed a petition for the issuance
of the writ of habeas data against the school. They argued, among others, that:
1. 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.
2. 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 the children were intruded
upon;
3. The intrusion into the Facebook accounts, as well as the copying of information, data, and digital
images happened at STC’s Computer Laboratory;
They prayed that STC be ordered to surrender and deposit with the court all soft and printed copies of the
subject data and have such data be declared illegally obtained in violation of the children’s right to
privacy.
The Cebu RTC eventually denied the petition. Hence, this appeal.

ISSUE: Whether or not the petition for writ of habeas data is proper.

HELD: Yes, it is proper but in this case, it will not prosper.

Contrary to the arguments of STC, the Supreme Court ruled that:
1. The petition for writ of habeas data can be availed of even if this is not a case of extralegal killing or
enforced disappearance; and
2. The writ of habeas data can be availed of against STC even if it is not an entity engaged in the
business of “gathering, collecting, or storing data or information regarding the person, family, home and
correspondence of the aggrieved party”.
First, the Rule on Habeas Data does not state that it can be applied only in cases of extralegal killings or
enforced disappearances. Second, 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 business of gathering, storing,
and collecting of data.

Right to Privacy on Social Media (Online Networking Sites)

The Supreme Court ruled that if an online networking site (ONS) like Facebook has privacy tools, and the
user makes use of such privacy tools, then he or she has a reasonable expectation of privacy (right to
informational privacy, that is). Thus, such privacy must be respected and protected.
In this case, however, there is no showing that the students concerned made use of such privacy tools.
Evidence would show that that their post (status) on Facebook were published as “Public”.
The default setting is “Public” and if a user wants to have some privacy, then he must choose any setting
other than “Public”. If it is true that the students concerned did set the posts subject of this case so much
so that only five people can see them (as they claim), then how come most of their classmates were able
to view them. This fact was not refuted by them. In fact, it was their classmates who informed and showed
their teacher, Escudero, of the said pictures. Therefore, it appears that Tan et al never use the privacy
settings of Facebook hence, they have no reasonable expectation of privacy on the pictures of them
scantily clad.
STC did not violate the students’ right to privacy. 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 (to which the students and their parents agreed to in the first place because of the
fact that they enrolled their children there).