3aepublic of tbe !lbilippine!i
~upreme
QCourt
;fffilanila
EN BANC
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court en bane issued a Resolution
dated OCTOBER 14, 2014, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 212174-- Sandra Cam, petitioner vs. "Sir Noy," Assistant Secretary
Alex G. Almario,Marlon Adigue Mahi/um (Driver), John Doe and Richard Doe,
respondents.
RESOLUTION
This is a Petition for Writ of Habeas Data filed by petitioner Sandra Cam
(petitioner).
Petitioner alleged that from April 30, 2014 to May 3, 201~, a white Toyota
Innova and black pickup without plate numbers (subject vehicles) conducted
surveillance around Nazareth Institute of Alfonso which is a school managed by
petitioner and where she resides temporarily; that on April 30, 2014, respondent
Alex G. Almario (respondent Almario), an Assistant Secretary in the Department
of Agrarian Reform (DAR), went to Nazareth Institute of Alfonso and left his
calling card; that respondent Almario claimed to be an "unofficial representative"
and requested to talk with petitioner about an alleged "List" containing the names
of Cabinet officials and legislators involved in the alleged pork barrel scam; that
from April 30, 2014 to May 3, 2014, the subject vehicles along with other vehicles
were seen suspiciously roaming around the school's premises; that the subject
vehicles parked in the same spot where the closed circuit television (cctv) could
not capture their images; that petitioner reported the menacing vehicular
movements by phone to Archbishop Oscar Cruz, Melchor Magdamo, and many
others; and that the foregoing incidents were reported to the police on May 3,
2014, and are recorded in a police blotter.
Petitioner prayed that a Writ of Habeas Data be issued; that respondents be
ordered to cease and desist from conducting reconnaissance and/or surveillance
activities in or around the private residence of petitioner; and that respondent
Almario be ordered to explain why he made numerous attempts to personally talk
with petitioner from April 30, 2014 to May 3, 2014.
f
Notice of Resolution
G.R. No. 212174
October 14, 2014
-2-
1
On June 3, 2014, the Court issued a Resolution requiring respondents to
comment on the subject Petition within ten (10) days from notice thereof
On July 7, 2014, respondents, through the Solicitor General, submitted their
Comment2 in which they contend that: (1) the President is immune from suit, (2)
the Petition is fatally defective for failure to allege the actions and recourses taken
by the petitioner to secure the data or information, and (3) petitioner failed to
allege how her right to privacy was violated or threatened, and how such affected
her right to life, liberty or security.
3
On August 19, 2014, the Court issued a Resolution directing respondent
Almario to comment on the allegations relative to his participation in the alleged
menacing surveillance activities and his repeated request for a face-to-face
meeting with petitioner.
On October 1, 2014, respondent Almario, joined by respondent Marlon
Mahilum (respondent Mahilum), filed their Comment. They contend that the Writ
of Habeas Data is a remedy directed against a public official or employee or a
private individual or entity engaged in gathering, collecting or storing of data or
information; that respondents Almario and Mahilum, being an Assistant Secretary
of the DAR and a mere driver of the former, respectively do not belong to the
category of public officials engaged in gathering, collecting or storing of data or
information regarding the person, family, home and correspondence of an
individual, including the petitioner; that no extrajudicial killing or enforced
disappearance is involved in this case; that the Petition failed to allege that the
information sought to be disclosed by petitioner was under the custody or control
of respondents Almario and Mahilum; that assuming petitioner's resort to Writ of
Habeas Data is proper, the same should be filed against the custodian or possessor
of the information and not against respondents; that petitioper is not the aggrieved
party considering that the alleged "information or List" in her possession is not
hers to keep; in fact, the information sought to be collected from petitioner are
matters of public concern and have nothing to do with petitioner's person, family
or home. In any case, respondents Almario and Mahilum deny having conducted
surveillance activities in Alfonso, Cavite; and that on April 30 and May 2, 2014,
they were at the DAR Central Office in Quezon City during the time material to
this case. In addition, respondents Almario and Mahilum assert that on May 1,
2014 they went to Tagaytay City; that to avoid traffic, they took the Alfonso,
Cavite route in going back to Manila; that knowing that they would pass by
petitioner's house - and considering that respondent Almario is acquainted with
petitioner since he was a Provincial Board Member in Masbate (whose Governor
then, both he and the petitioner supported), respondents decided to visit petitioner
at her residence on the spur of the moment; that upon inquiry, they were informed
that petitioner was not around; thus respondents proceeded to Quezon City
arriving thereat at around 4 p.m.; that they do not have back-up vehicles, that the
1
2
3
Rollo, p. 35.
Id. at 36-44.
Id. at 45-46.
f
Notice of Resolution
-3-
G.R. No. 212174
October 14, 2014
following day, petitioner called up respondent Almario and they even exchanged
pleasantries. Finally, respondents Almario and Mahilum contend that the Petition
is fatally defective for failure to specifically allege unjustified or unlawful
violation of petitioner's right to privacy related to her life, liberty or security; as
such, it must be dismissed outright.
For resolution before this Court is whether the Writ of Habeas Data should
issue.
We dismiss the Petition.
The subject Petition for Writ of Habeas Data was filed in the wrong
venue. Section 3 of the "Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data" providesSEC. 3. Where to File. The petition may be filed with the
Regional Trial Court where petitioner or respondent resides, or that which
has jurisdiction over the place where the data or information are gathered,
collected or stored, at the option of the petitioner.
The petition may also be filed with the Supreme Court or the
Court of Appeals or the Sandiganbayan when the action concerns public
data files of government offices. (Emphasis supplied) ·
The subject Petition was filed directly with this Court. However, there
is no allegation to the effect that the subject Petition involves or concerns
public data files of government offices. Rather, the ·subject Petition
principally involves alleged menacing surveillance activities through
unidentified and unregistered vehicles. Further, no special or compelling
reason has been proffered by petitioner which would otherwise justify the
relaxation of the rule on venue in this case.
·
Section 6 of the "Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data" statesSEC. 6. Petition.- A verified written petition for a writ of habeas
data should contain:
(a) The personal circumstances of the petitioner and the
respondent;
(b) The manner [by which] the right to privacy is violated
or threatened and how it affects the right to life, liberty
or security of the aggrieved party;
(c) The actions and recourses taken by the petitioner to
secure the data or information;
(d) The location of the files, registers or databases, the
government office, and the person in charge, in
possession or in control of the data or information, if
known;
(e) The reliefs prayed for, which may include the updating,
rectification, suppression or destruction of the database
or information or files kept by the respondent.
f
Notice of Resolution
-4-
G.R. No. 212174
October 14, 2014
In case of threats, the relief may include a prayer for
an order enjoining the act complained of; and
(f) Such other relevant reliefs as are just and equitable.
Section 6 requires specific and verified allegations in support of
petitioner's cause of action. It further requires that petitioner "allege the
courses of action he or she has undertaken to protect the right to privacy or
4
the right to life, liberty or security of the petitioner." It is reasonable to
presume that the Rule requires the petitioner to allege the courses of action he or
she has undertaken in order to determine if there are sufficiently important
or compelling reasons to issue the writ considering that it is an extraordinary
remedy.
In the case at bar, petitioner alleged that from April 30, 2014 to May 3,
2014, the subject vehicles were seen suspiciously roaming around the school's
premises, where petitioner temporarily resides. On May 3, 2014, Susan Ilagan, the
school's registrar, had the alleged events entered in the blotter of the Alfonso
Municipal Police Station.5 The subject Petition, however, does not allege whether
petitioner immediately sought the assistance of the police in order to apprehend
the drivers and passengers of the subject vehicles to put a stop to the latter's
alleged menacing surveillance activities, which could presumably encroach upon
petitioner's privacy. There is nothing to suggest that the police withheld or would
have withheld such assistance if the same was sought by petitioner or that the
police were in complicity with the drivers and passengers of the subject vehicles.
In view thereof, while petitioner's allegations of surveillance through the
subject unregistered vehicles may be a cause for concern and further
investigation by the police, from whom petitioner may seek adequate relief,
they are inadequate, within the context of the instant case, to merit the
issuance of the extraordinary writ which is reserved only for such
sufficiently serious and credible threats to an individual's right to privacy in
relation to the right to life, liberty or security.
"The writ of habeas data was conceptualized as a judicial remedy
enforcing the right to privacy, most especially the right to informational
privacy of individuals. The writ operates to protect a person's right to control
information regarding himself, particularly in the instances where such
information is being collected through unlawful means in order to achieve
unlawful ends. Needless to state, an indispensable requirement before the
privilege of the writ may be extended is the showing, at least by substantial
evidence, of an actual or threatened violation of the right to privacy in life,
liberty or security of the victim. " 6 There must exist a nexus between the right to
privacy on the one hand and the right to life, liberty or security on the other. 7 There
must also be substantial evidence to support the allegations. And the threat must
4
Annotation to the Writ of Habeas Data issued by the Supreme Court. (Emphasis supplied)
Annex L, Petition, rollo, p. 31.
6
Roxas v. Arroyo, G.R. No. 189155, September 7, 2010, 630 SCRA 211, 239-240.
7
Gamboa v. Chan, G.R. No. 193636, July 24, 2012, 677 SCRA 385, 400.
5
f
.o
Notice of Resolution
-5-
G.R. No. 212174
October 14, 2014
find rational basis on the surrounding circumstances of the case; it must be
supported by independent and credible evidence.8
In the case at bar, petitioner failed to carry this onus.
First, petitioner did not sufficiently establish that respondent Almario
was behind the alleged surveillance over her person conducted through the
subject vehicles. The Petition merely alleges that the days (i.e., April 30 to
May 3, 2014) when the menacing surveillance occurred coincided with one
of the days (i.e., April 30, 2014) when respondent Almario dropped by
petitioner's school and requested for a face-to-face meeting with petitioner.
There are no allegations of overt or covert acts to suggest that the subject
vehicles escorted respondent Almario or that they were part of one group
when respondent Almario dropped by petitioner's school to request for the
meeting.
Second, respondent Almario's act of requesting a face-to-face meeting
with petitioner, assuming this to be true, does not causally or reasonably
relate to the alleged threat to her right to privacy vis-a-vis her right to life,
liberty or security. If petitioner finds respondent Almario's acts vexatious,
then there are sufficient remedies - administrative, civil and criminal - that
she may avail of.
Third, petitioner's allegations are not supported by credible,
independent and corroborative evidence. From April 30 to May 3, 2014,
petitioner claims that she observed that the subject vehicles purposely
evaded the cctv of the school but she herself did not once attempt to take
pictures of the subject vehicles during the alleged four-day surveillance over
her person nor did she immediately seek police assistance to apprehend the
drivers and passengers of the subject vehicles. She waited for four days
before asking her school's registrar, Susan Ilagan, to have the matter
reported to the police. Considering also that the place allegedly subject of
the menacing surveillance was a school, petitioner did not explain why she
failed to submit substantial corroborating evidence apart from the blotter
report made by the school registrar, Susan Ilagan.
Moreover, we note that the Writ of Habeas Data is a remedy
enforceable against "a public official or employee, or 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." 9 As correctly pointed out by respondents, their functions as public
officials do not extend to gathering, collecting or storing of data or
information regarding the person, family, home and correspondence of
certain individuals. As such, they are not the proper parties to this case. In
addition, respondents correctly argue that petitioner could not be considered
8
9
Saez v. Arroyo, G.R. No. 183533, September 25, 2012, 681SCRA678, 691-692.
A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC (Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data, Section 1).
Notice of Resolution
-6-
G.R. No. 212174
October 14, 2014
the aggrieved party in the instant suit. As claimed by petitioner herself, the
so-called "List" contains the names of cabinet officials and legislators
involved in the alleged pork barrel scam. In short, the information allegedly
being gathered does not concern petitioner; neither does it pertain to
petitioner's family, home and correspondence. In fact, the information is of
public concern which, according to respondents, is not petitioner's to keep.
Further, Section 6( d) of the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data requires
the Petition to allege "[t]he location of the files, registers or database, the
government office, and the person in charge, in possession or in control of
the data or information, if known." In the instant case, petitioner utterly
failed to comply with this requirement. Nowhere was it mentioned in the
Petition that herein respondents are the persons in charge, in possession, or
in control of the data or information.
Finally, the other allegations in the subject Petition, i.e., that the
President is willfully suppressing the right of the people to information on
matters of public concern relative to the "List" of government officials
involved in the alleged pork barrel scam, lie outside the ambit of the writ.
Petitioner may pursue such claims in a proper suit, invoking her
constitutional right to information under Article III, Section ?1° of the
Constitution, if she is so minded.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Petition is DISMISSED."
Velasco, Jr., J., on official leave. Brion, J., on leave. (adv58)
Very truly yours,
EN~~IDAL
Clerk of Court 1~
10
The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to
official records, and to documents, and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well
as to government research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject
to such limitations as may be provided by law.
e·
Resolution
ATTY. REYNALDO L. BAGATSING (reg)
Bagatsing Law Office
Counsel for Petitioner
Suite 1203 Marbella II Condominium
2071 Roxas Boulevard, Malate
Manila
. I C INFORMATION OFFICE (x)
LIBRARY SERVICES. (x)
[For uploading pursuant to A.M. No. 12-7-1-SC]
JUDGMENT DIVISION (x)
JUDICIAL RECORDS OFFICE (x)
Supreme Court
G.R. No. 212174
fam 101414(adv58)101614
- 7-
G. R. No. 212174
October 14, 2014
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (reg)
SENIOR STATE SOLICITOR FLORIN T. HILBAY (reg)
ASSOCIATE SOLICITOR EMERSON S. BANEZ (reg)
ATTY. II RAMON ANTONIO D. PANDAN (reg)
134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village
1229 Makati City
ASSISTANT SECRETARY ALEX G. ALMARIO (reg)
MARLON ADIGUE MAHILUM (reg)
Department of Agrarian Reform
Quezon Memorial Circle
Quezon City
ATTY. VITALIANO N. AGUIRRE II (reg)
Counsel for Respondents Asst. Secretary Alex G.
Almario and Marlon Adigue Mahilum
Suite 2104, Atlanta Centre, No. 31 Annapolis Street
Greenhills, San Juan City