privacy, specifically informational privacy.
VIVARES VS STC
-Julia and Juliene, both minors, were graduating
students of St. Theresa's College in Cebu.
-Sometime in 2012, while changing into their
swimsuits for a beach party they were about to
attend, Julia and Juliene, along with several others,
took digital pictures of themselves clad or wearing
only their undergarments.
-They posted these pictures online.
-Mylene Escudero, a computer teacher at STC
learned from other students regarding the pictures
posted online and asked her students if they know
the girls in the photos. Julia and Juliene, and Chloe,
among others were identified.
-Using the computers of STC, Mylene Escudero's
students logged in their respective personal FB
accounts and showed her photos of the identified
students.
-Some of the photos include Julia and Julienne
drinking hard liquor and smoking cigars inside a
bar; them along the streets of Cebu wearing articles
of clothing that virtually show their undergarments.
Escudero's students claimed that there were times
that photos posted by the girls are in Public view
setting.
-Escudero reported this matter to Kristine Tigol,
STC's discipline-in-charge and after investigation,
STC found the students to have violated the Student
Handbook regarding possession of alcoholic drinks,
engaging in indecent acts, smoking, drinking in
public places, wearing apparel that exposes the
underwear, among others
-As part of their penalty, they were barred from
joining the commencement exercises.
-Because of these, a petition for injunction was filed
in court by the mother of Angela. Julia's mother
joined as intervenor.
-Despite the issuance of a TRO, the students were
still barred by the school for attending the
graduation.
-Thus, a petition for the issuance of a Writ of
Habeas Data was filed in the RTC. Was dismissed.
Petitioners failed to prove the existence of an actual
or threatened violation of the minors' right to
privacy. Also, posting in Fb without restrictions as
to who may view them lost their privacy in some
way.
ISSUE:
Whether or not there was indeed an actual or
threatened violation of the right to privacy in the
life, liberty, or security of the minors.
RULING:
1. Writ of habeas data is not limited to extra-legal
killings and enforced disappearances. It was
designed to safeguard individual freedom from
abuse in the information age. It can even be adopted
as an independent remedy to enforce one’s right to
Remedies include updating, rectification,
suppression or destruction of the database of
information or files in the possession of
respondents.
The writ of habeas details 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.11 It is an
independent and summary remedy designed to
protect the image, privacy, honor, information, and
freedom of information of an individual, and to
provide a forum to enforce one’s right to the truth
and to informational privacy. It seeks to protect a
person’s right to control information regarding
oneself, particularly in instances in which such
information is being collected through unlawful
means in order to achieve unlawful ends.
2. "engage" - to do or take part in something"
different from undertaking a business endeavour,
need not be engaged in business of gathering,
storing, etc.
-Applicable to any person, to be read as a whole.
3. a. Right to informational privacy - right to control
information about themselves/ personal information.
4. There is a reasonable expectation of privacy in
Facebook due to the presence of privacy tools
wherein OSN users are said to have a subjective
expectation that only those to whom they granted
access to their profile will view the information they
post or upload.
HOWEVER, it is not automatic that a person has a
protected expectation of privacy in her Facebook
activities. There should be manifested an intention
to keep certain posts private, through employment
of the privacy tools to limit its visibility. In the
Cyberworld, the privacy tools are the equivalent of
the users invocation of his right to informational
privacy.
*In the case, it was not proven that the privacy tools
of FB were utilized to limit their viewers to only the
five of them. Hence, they cannot now insist that
their right to privacy has been violated.
Assuming that it is limited to "friends" only, there is
still no assurance that it can no longer be viewed by
another user who is not in FB. Tagging feature of
FB.