RHONDA AVE S. VIVARES and SPS. MARGARITA and DAVID SUZARA,
Petitioners,
vs
ST. THERESA’S COLLEGE, MYLENE RHEZA T. ESCUDERO, and JOHN DOES,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 202666, September 29, 2014
(Third Division)
FACTS: In January 2012, Angela Tan, a high school student at St. Theresa’s College
(STC), uploaded on Facebook several pictures of her and her classmates (Nenita Daluz
and Julienne Suzara) wearing only their undergarments. Thereafter, some of their
classmates reported said photos to their teacher, Mylene Escudero. Escudero, through
her students, viewed and downloaded said pictures. She showed the said pictures to
STC’s Discipline-in-Charge for appropriate action. Later, STC found Tan et al to have
violated the student’s handbook and banned them from “marching” in their graduation
ceremonies scheduled in March 2012.
The issue went to court but despite a TRO (temporary restraining order) granted by the
Cebu RTC enjoining the school from barring the students in the graduation ceremonies,
STC still barred said students.
Subsequently, Rhonda Vivares, mother of Nenita, and the other mothers filed a petition
for the issuance of the writ of habeas data against the school. They argued, among
others, that:
1. The privacy setting of their children’s Facebook accounts was set at “Friends
Only.” They, thus, have a reasonable expectation of privacy which must be
respected.
2. The photos accessed belong to the girls and, thus, 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 the 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;
They prayed that STC be ordered to surrender and deposit with the court all soft and
printed copies of the subject data and have such data be declared illegally obtained in
violation of the children’s right to privacy. The Cebu RTC eventually denied the petition.
Hence, this appeal.
ISSUE: Whether or not the petition for writ of habeas data is proper on the ground that
there in an actual or threatened violation of the right to privacy in the life, liberty, or
security of the minors involved in the case.
HELD: YES it is proper but in this case, it will not prosper.
Contrary to the arguments of STC, the Supreme Court ruled that:
1. The petition for writ of habeas data can be availed of even if this is not a case of
extralegal killing or enforced disappearance; and
2. The writ of habeas data can be availed of against STC even if it is not an entity
engaged in the business of “gathering, collecting, or storing data or information
regarding the person, family, home and correspondence of the aggrieved party”.
First, the Rule on Habeas Data does not state that it can be applied only in cases of
extralegal killings or enforced disappearances. Second, 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.
On the Right to Privacy on Social Media (Online Networking Sites)
The Supreme Court ruled that if an online networking site (ONS) like Facebook has
privacy tools, and the user makes use of such privacy tools, then he or she has a
reasonable expectation of privacy (right to informational privacy, that is). Thus, such
privacy must be respected and protected.
In this case, however, there is no showing that the students concerned made use of
such privacy tools. Evidence would show that that their post (status) on Facebook were
published as “Public”.
Facebook has the following settings to control as to who can view a user’s posts on his
“wall” (profile page):
a. Public – the default setting; every Facebook user can view the photo;
b. Friends of Friends – only the user’s Facebook friends and their friends can view
the photo;
c. Friends – only the user’s Facebook friends can view the photo;
d. Custom – the photo is made visible only to particular friends and/or networks of
the Facebook user; and
e. Only Me – the digital image can be viewed only by the user.
The default setting is “Public” and if a user wants to have some privacy, then he must
choose any setting other than “Public”. If it is true that the students concerned did set
the posts subject of this case so much so that only five people can see them (as they
claim), then how come most of their classmates were able to view them. This fact was
not refuted by them. In fact, it was their classmates who informed and showed their
teacher, Escudero, of the said pictures. Therefore, it appears that Tan et al never use
the privacy settings of Facebook hence, they have no reasonable expectation of privacy
on the pictures of them scantily clad.
STC did not violate the students’ right to privacy. The manner which the school
gathered the pictures cannot be considered illegal. As it appears, it was the classmates
of the students who showed the picture to their teacher and the latter, being the
recipient of said pictures, merely delivered them to the proper school authority and it
was for a legal purpose, that is, to discipline their students according to the standards of
the school (to which the students and their parents agreed to in the first place because
of the fact that they enrolled their children there).