Vivares Vs. St. Theresa’s College, G.R. No.

202666
Students not allowed to graduate over scandalous post on facebook
 Article 3, Section 3. 1987 Constitution

(1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except

upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise,
as prescribed by law.
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
 Facts
❖ Sometime in January 2012, Nenita Julia V. Dalus and Julienne Vida
Suzara both graduating students of St Theresa’s College, Cebu
City, while changing clothes for swimsuit attire at a beach, took
digital pictures of themselves clad only in their undergarments.
❖ The pictures was uploaded by Angela Lindsay Tan on her Facebook
account.
❖ Mylene Rheza T. Escudero, a computer teacher in St. Theresa, have
known the information about the picture of Senior students
wearing brassieres and inquire from other students the identity of
those on the photo.
❖ Using the school’s computer, Escudero’s students logged on their
respective Facebook and identified the students on the picture as to be
Julia and Julienne who are drinking hard liquor and smoking cigarettes
inside a bar and another picture where both are wearing clothes that the
entirety of their black brassieres.
❖ Ms. Escudero reported the information to Kristine Rose Tigol, STC’s
Discipline-in-Charge and through Facebook showed the pictures.
 ❖ Upon investigation of the school, they have identified that the students have
violated the protocols in the Students Handbook, which are as follows:
1. Possession of alcoholic drinks outside the school campus;
2. Engaging in immoral, indecent, obscene or lewd acts;
3. Smoking and drinking alcoholic beverages in public places;
4. Apparel that exposes the underwear;
5.Clothing that advocates unhealthy behavior; depicts obscenity; contains
sexually suggestive messages, language or symbols; and
6. Posing and uploading pictures on the Internet that entail ample body exposure.
❖ On March 1, 2012. Sr. Celeste Purisima, the STC’s principal informed the
parents of the students that they cannot join the commencement exercises
scheduled on March 30, 2012.
❖ On March 23, 2012, Angela’s mother, Dr. Armenia M. Tan, filed a Petition
for Injunction and Damages before the RTC of Cebu City against
STC, et al., docketed as Civil Case No. CEB-38594.
❖ On March 28, 2012, the RTC issued a temporary restraining order (TRO)
allowing the students to attend the graduation ceremony, to which
STC filed a motion for reconsideration.
❖ Despite the TRO, STC proceed with barring the students to attend the
commencement exercises scheduled on March 30, 2012.
❖ Due to the action of STC, the petitioner files at RTC for the Issuance of a Writ
of Habeas Data, docketed as SP. Proc. No. 19251-CEB on the basis of the
following considerations:
1. The privacy setting of their children’s Facebook accounts was set at "Friends
Only." Thus, they have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
2. The photos accessed belong to the girl, thus, it cannot be used and
reproduced without their consent. Escudero, however, violated their rights by
saving digital copies of the photos and by subsequently showing them to
STC’s officials. Thus, the Facebook accounts of petitioners’ children were
intruded upon
3. The intrusion into the Facebook accounts, as well as the copying of
information, data, and digital images happened at STC’s Computer
Laboratory; and
4. The petitioners, the interplay of the foregoing constitutes an invasion of
their children’s privacy and, thus, prayed that:
(a) a writ of habeas data be issued;
(b) respondents be ordered to surrender and deposit with the court all soft
and printed copies of the subject data before or at the preliminary hearing;
and
(c) after trial, judgment be rendered declaring all information, data, and
digital images accessed, saved or stored, reproduced, spread and used, to
have been illegally obtained.
 ISSUES

1. WON a writ of habeas data should be issues

2. WON there was an actual or threatened violation of the right to privacy,
in the liberty or security of the minors who are involved in the case.
 RULING:

❖ NO. 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.
❖ The writ will not be issued on the basis merely of an alleged
unauthorized access to information about a person. The existence of a
person's right to informational privacy and showing at least a
substantial evidence of an actual or threatened violation of the right of
the person in life, liberty or security of the victims are indispensable
before the privilege of the writ may be extended.
The Right to privacy on Facebook
❖ The court rule that STC did not violate the petitioner’s privacy
❖ Facebook was armed with different privacy tools designed to regulate the
accessibility of a user’s profile as well as information uploaded by the user.
❖ Facebook user can regulate the visibility and accessibility of digital
images(photos), posted on his or her personal bulletin or "wall," except for
the user’s profile picture and ID, by selecting his or her desired privacy
setting:
1. Public - the default setting; every Facebook user can view the photo;
2. Friends of Friends - only the user’s Facebook friends and their friends
can view the photo;
3. Friends - only the user’s Facebook friends can view the photo;
4. Custom - the photo is made visible only to particular friends and/or
networks of the Facebook user; and
5. Only Me - the digital image can be viewed only by the user.
❖ STC did not violate their student’s privacy since the manner in which
they acquired was not illegal. The setting of photos privacy to “Friends
Only” is no assurance that it can no longer be viewed by another user
who is not Facebook Friends with the source of the content. The user
who is not Facebook Friend with source of the content. The user’s own
Facebook can share said content or tag others regardless of whether
the user tagged by the latter is Facebook Friends or not with the former.
 Thank You!

Prepared by: Mariano L. Caldingon