Manila Electric Company vs.

Rosario Gopez
Lim
G.R. No. 184769, October 5, 2010
FACTS: Rosario G. Lim, also known as Cherry Lim, is an administrative
clerk at MERALCO. In June 2008, an anonymous letter was posted at the
door of the Metering Office of MERALCO which Lim is assigned. The
letter reads:

Cherry Lim:
MATAPOS MONG LAMUNIN LAHAT NG BIYAYA NG MERALCO, NGAYON
NAMAN AY GUSTO MONG PALAMON ANG BUONG KUMPANYA SA MGA
BUWAYA NG GOBYERNO. KAPAL NG MUKHA MO, LUMAYAS KA RITO,
WALANG UTANG NA LOOB…
Petitioner Alexander Deyto, Head of MERALCO’s Human Resource
Staffing, directed the transfer of Cherry Lim to MERALCO’s Alabang
Sector in Muntinlupa in light of the receipt of reports that there were
accusations and threats directed against her from unknown individual
which could possibly compromise her safety and security.
Respondent appealed her transfer, claiming that the punitive nature of
the transfer amounted to a denial of due process. Respondent thus
requested for the deferment of the implementation of her transfer.
No response to her request having been received, respondent filed a
petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas data against petitioners
before the RTC.
Respondent alleged that petitioners’ unlawful act and omission
consisting of their continued failure and refusal to provide her with
details or information about the alleged report which MERALCO
purportedly received concerning threats to her safety and security
amount to a violation of her right to privacy in life, liberty and security,
correctible by habeas data. Respondent thus prayed for the issuance of
a writ.
ISSUE: May an employee invoke the remedies available under the writ
of habeas data where an employer decides to transfer her workplace on
the basis of copies of an anonymous letter posted therein – imputing to
her disloyalty to the company and calling for her to leave, which
imputation it investigated but fails to inform her of the details thereof?
RULING: NO. In Castillo vs. Cruz, the SC underscores the emphasis laid
down in Tapuz vs. del Rosario that the writs of amparo and habeas data
will NOT issue to protect purely property or commercial concerns nor
when the grounds invoked in support of the petitions therefor are vague
or doubtful. Employment constitutes a property right under the context
of the due process clause of the Constitution. It is evident that
respondent’s reservation on the real reason for her transfer are what
prompted her to adopt the extraordinary remedy of habeas data.
Jurisdiction over such concerns is inarguably lodged by law with the
NLRC and the Labor Arbiters.
She even suspects that her transfer to another place of work “betrays
the real intent of management” and could be a “punitive move”. Her
posture unwittingly concedes that the issue is labor related.
Rhonda Ave S. Vivares vs. St. Theresa’s College
G.R. No. 202666, September 29, 2014
FACTS: Julia and Julienne, both minors, were graduating high school students at
STC Cebu. 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 uploaded by Angela Tan on her Facebook profile.
At the school, Mylene Escudero, a computer teacher, learned from her students
about the pictures that some senior posted. Julia, Julienne and Chloe were
identified. Escudero also saw other pictures wherein Julia and Julienne were
drinking liquor and smoking cigarettes. These pictures were allegedly viewable
by any Facebook user. Escudero then reported the matter to Kristine Tigol the
STC’s Discipline-in-Charge. STC found that the students deported themselves in
a manner proscribed by Student’s handbook. As penalty, they were barred from
joining the commencement exercises.
A week before graduation, Angela’s mother, Dr. Tan, filed a petition for
injunction, praying that STC be enjoined from implementing the
sanction that precluded Angela from joining the rites. Rhonda Vivares,
Julia’s mother, joined as an intervenor.
The RTC issued a TRO, allowing the students to attend the ceremony.
However, STC still did not allow the students to participate in the rites
since its MR still remained unresolved. Thereafter, the petitioners filed a
petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas data.
Respondents argued that the writ of habeas data only applies to cases
of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances; and it may not be
issued against it because it is not engaged in the business of collecting,
storing, or gathering data.
ISSUE: Whether or Not there is an actual or threatened violation of the
right to privacy in the life, liberty, or security of the minors involved in
this case.
RULING: NONE. In developing the writ of habeas data, the Court aimed
to protect an individual’s right to informational privacy. The writ,
however, will not issue on the basis merely of an alleged unauthorized
access to information about a person. 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.
Thus, the existence of a person’s right to informational privacy and a
showing, at least by a 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.
Without an actionable entitlement in the first place to the right to
informational privacy, a habeas data petition will not prosper.
Habeas data was designed to safeguard individual freedom from abuse
in the information age. As such it is erroneous to limit its applicability to
extralegal killings and enforced disappearances only.
As to respondents’ contention that it is not engaged in the business of
gathering, storing, and collecting data, 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.
Habeas data is a protection against unlawful act or omission 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.