MERALCO v.

Lim (2010) – writ of habeas data

DOCTRINE: Generally, the writ of habeas data rule 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.
The writ of habeas data will NOT issue to: (1) protect purely property/commercial concerns, or (2) when the
grounds are vague or doubtful.

FACTS:

1
• Rosario “Cherry” Lim was an administrative clerk in MERALCO.
 o She got an anonymous hate letter that
also circulated in the whole company.

• Alexander Deyto, Head of Human Resources, transferred Lim to MERALCO’S Alabang Sector.
 o The
transfer was due to the reports that there were accusations and threats directed at her that could possibly

compromise her safety and security.
 • Lim wrote a letter to Meralco, appealing her transfer and requested
to voice her concerns on the matter, specifically that her transfer

based on this “punitive matter” was a denial of due process.
 o She also reasoned that her travel from
Pampanga to Alabang was grueling and a violation of the provisions on job

security of their CBA. Meralco did not reply.
 • Lim filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas data
and a TRO with the RTC against MERALCO.

o Lim alleged that MERALCO’s failure/refusal to provide her with details about the threats amounted to a
violation of her right to privacy in life, liberty and security, correctible by habeas data.

• Lim prayed the issuance of a writ commanding Meralco to file a written return containing the following:

. a) Full disclosure of the data/information about Lim in relation to the report received by
MERALCO on the alleged threat to 
her safety and security; 


. b) The nature of such data and the purpose for its collection; 


. c) Measures taken by MERALCO to ensure the confidentiality of such data/information; and 


. d) Currency and accuracy of such data or information obtained. 


• MERALCO alleged that: 


o The issuance of a writ of habeas data was not proper.
 o RTC has no jurisdiction and the case should be
filed with the NLRC.

• RTC ruled in favor of Lim granting the TRO on her transfer and issued the writ of habeas data.
 o RTC
held that the a writ of habeas data should extend not only to victims of extra-legal killings and political
activists, but

also to ordinary citizens, such as Lim, whose rights to life and security are jeopardized by MERALCO’s
refusal to provide her with information on the reported threats.

ISSUES/HELD:
 Was the issuance of the writ of habeas data proper?—NO, the writ of habeas data
was not proper.

• SC held that the case at hand does not fall within Section 1 of the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data.
 o
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.

• Generally, the writ of habeas data is designed to protect by means of a judicial complaint the
image, privacy, honor, information, and freedom of information of an individual.

o 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.

• It bears reiteration that habeas data was conceived as a response, given the lack of effective and available
remedies, to address the extraordinary rise in the number of killings and enforced disappearances.

o Its intent is to address violations of or threats to the rights to life, liberty or security as a remedy
independently from those provided under prevailing Rules.

• In the cases of Castillo v. Cruz and Tapuz v. del Rosario, SC held that the writ of habeas data will NOT
issue to: (1) protect purely property/commercial concerns, or (2) when the grounds are
vague/doubtful. 


• Employment constitutes a property right under the context of the due process clause of the Constitution.



o Lim’s allegation on the real reasons for her transfer (violation of the CBA) are what prompted her to file a
petition for the

issuance of the writ of habeas data. (Also, NLRC has jurisdiction.)
 • SC also held that there is no showing
that MERALCO committed any unjustifiable/unlawful violation of respondent’s right to

privacy vis-a-vis the right to life, liberty or security.
 o MERALCO’s alleged refusal to disclose the contents
of reports amounts to a violation of her right to privacy is at best

speculative.
 o Lim surmises that these threats and accusations from unknown individuals as "highly
suspicious, doubtful or are just

mere jokes if they existed at all."
 • ULTIMATELY, SC held that the matter is a labor-related one that was
outside the scope of the issuance of a writ of habeas data.