Case Title G.R. No. 202666 | RHONDA AVE S. VIVARES and SPS.

MARGARITA and DAVID

SUZARA VS. ST. THERESA’S COLLEGE, MYLENE RHEZA T. ESCUDERO, and JOHN
DOES
Date September 29, 2014
Ponente Velasco, JR., J.
Facts: Nenita Julia V. Daluz (Julia) and Julienne Vida Suzara (Julienne), both are minors and
graduating high school students at St. Theresa’s College (STC) Cebu City. Julia and Julienne are
cousins and sometime in January 2012 they conduct a beach party together with their friends
as a celebration for their graduation, as they were changing to their swimsuits, they took a
picture and Angela Lindsay Tan (Angela) uploaded it on her Facebook profile.

Back at the school, Mylene Rheza T. Escudero (Escudero), a computer teacher at STC’s high
school department, Escudero learned from his students that some students of STC posted
pictures online, in the picture that the students showed Escudero using the STC’s Computer
as they logged in to their respective Facebook accounts, the involved students were only
wearing a brassiere, drinking liquor, and smoking. Escudero then asked her students if they
know who the students are in the picture, the students identified Julia, Julienne, and Chloe
Lourdes Taboada (Chloe). Escudero also learned from her students that the involved students
were sometimes posted pictures online in where it is not only confided in their Facebook
profiles and can be viewed publicly. With this discovery Escudero reported these incidents to
Kristine Rose Tigol (Tigol) which is the STC’s Discipline-In-Charge and showed her the pictures
of the girls through one of her student Facebook page, through this discovery they came
upon a decision that this involved senior students shall granted an appropriate action for
what they commit as what they did is prohibited and is stated in the school’s Student
Handbook.

On March 1, 2012, Julia, Julienne, Angela, and other students involved was called in the office
of Sr. Celeste Ma. Purisima Pe (Sr. Purisima), she is the STC’s High School Principal and ICM
Directress. The students (Julia, Julienne, Angela, and others) claimed that during the meeting
they were verbally abused by the STC Officials including Assistant Principal Mussolini S. Yap
(Yap), Roswinda Jumiller, and Tigol. The day after this meeting their parents were informed by
Sr. Purisima that as a part of their penalty for what they did they will not march in their
commencement exercise which will happened on March 30, 2012.

On March 23, 2012, a week before their graduation, Dr. Armenia M. Tan (Tan) the mother of
Angela filed a petition for Injunction and Damages before the RTC of Cebu City against STC.
Rhonda Ave Vivares (Vivaves) the mother of Julia joined as an intervenor on March 25, 2012.
On March 28, 2012 the defendants filed for memorandum, on that same day the RTC issued a
TRO (temporary restraining order) that allows the students to attend their graduation
ceremony but the STC filed for reconsideration. The STC still didn’t allow the students
involved to march in their commencement exercise. Through this, the petitioners then issued
a Writ of Habeas Data before the RTC.
Petitioner’s Argument/s: Respondent’s Argument/s:

 The photos of their child that the STC
gathered were for a beach party they
were about to attend to.
 The Facebook privacy setting of their
child was set at “friend’s only” and
expect a respect of privacy.
 The respondents should know that
the students should have a right to
privacy. However, the petitioner
argues that their right to privacy was
violated when Escudero print a digital
copy of their photos and show it to
the STC officials.
 The photos of their child cannot be
produced without their consent.
 The petitioners are not the proper
parties to file the petition as it is
stated in The Rule on The Writ of
Habeas Data under Section 2.
 Petitioners are only engaging in forum
shopping.
 The respondent argues that writ of
habeas data should not be issued.
 There is no violation of their right to
privacy as they should not expect a
privacy on Facebook.

Issue:
WHETHER OR NOT A WRIT OF HABEAS DATA SHOULD BE ISSUED.

Ruling:

There is no merit in the petition. As stated in the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data under
section 1. Habeas Data: The writ of habeas data is 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. It is designed to protect the information of an
individual’s right to information privacy; however, we can only expect less of privacy in the
Online Social Network as what we post online will be permanently leave a trace on it. The
right to informational privacy is the defined as the right of individuals to control information
about themselves.

However, in this case the students are not entitled to have a right to privacy as they posted
their picture in the Facebook in which it is viewable by every user. The students claimed that
the picture they uploaded were only viewable by the five of them in which contradicts the
part that it is not possible that only the five of them can viewed it when Escudero’s students
seen it and it is not only confided within the five of them.
Dispositive Portion:
The issuance of writ of habeas data in this case was dismissed since there is no merit in the
petition and no right of privacy was violated.