Manila Electric Co. et al., vs. Lim, GR No. 184769, Oct.

5, 2010

Facts:

Rosario G. Lim (respondent), also known as Cherry Lim, is an administrative clerk at the Manila Electric Company
(MERALCO). Her workplace received threats through letter and it was directed to her, thus the human resource in
her workplace directed her transfer to other branch. From bulacan she was transferred to muntinlupa.

Respondent appealed the transfer through letter, she requested for voice dialogue with the head of HR
administration. She wanted to voice out her concerns on the matter of her transfer and that there was no due process
when the direct order was issued, and the grueling effort to travel from her home to the place where she was
transferred were not considered and also it violates the CBA with regards to the job security, and she also expressed
her thoughts on the letter, for her the letter was suspicious, doubtful or just mere jokes if the letter ever existed.

She received no response from the company, thus she filed a petition for habeas data, in RTC of bulacan. Where she
got a favorable decision, The trial court justified its ruling by declaring that, inter alia, recourse to a writ of habeas
data should extend not only to victims of extra-legal killings and political activists but also to ordinary citizens, like
respondent whose rights to life and security are jeopardized by petitioners’ refusal to provide her with information or
data on the reported threats to her person..

Thus, this petition for review in Supreme Court.

Issue:

Whether or not, writ of habeas data is applicable in the case at bar.

Ruling:

No, the habeas data rule, in general, is designed to protect by means of judicial complaint the image, privacy, honor,
information, and freedom of information of an individual. It is meant to provide a forum to enforce one’s right to the
truth and to informational privacy, thus safeguarding the constitutional guarantees of a person’s right to life, liberty
and security against abuse in this age of information technology.

Respondent’s plea that she be spared from complying with MERALCO’s Memorandum directing her reassignment
to the Alabang Sector, under the guise of a quest for information or data allegedly in possession of petitioners, does
not fall within the province of a writ of habeas data.Respondent trivializes these threats and accusations from
unknown individuals in her earlier-quoted portion of her July 10, 2008 letter as “highly suspicious, doubtful or are
just mere jokes if they existed at all.”