Vivares v St.

Theresas College

GR No. 202666

FACTS:

Nenita Julia V. Daluz and Julienne Vida Suzara, both minors, were graduating high
school students at St. Theresa's College (STC), Cebu City. Julia and Julienne, along with several
others, took digital pictures of themselves clad only in their undergarments. These pictures were
then uploaded by Angela Lindsay Tan on her Facebook profile. 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 STCs
Discipline-in-Charge for appropriate action. Later, STC found Tan et al to have violated the
students 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 childrens 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 STCs 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 STCs 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
childrens right to privacy.

The Cebu RTC eventually denied the petition. Hence, this appeal.
ISSUE: Whether or not the petition for writ of habeas data will prosper.

HELD:

NO, it will not prosper.

Contrary to the arguments of STC, the Supreme Court ruled that: (ang argument sa STC kay dili
applicable ang HD kay dili daw extralegal killings or enforced disappearances ang issue.)

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.

In developing the writ of habeas data, the Court aimed to protect an individuals right to
informational privacy, among others. A comparative law scholar has, in fact, defined habeas
dataas "a procedure designed to safeguard individual freedom from abuse in the information
age." The writ, however, will not issue on the basis merely of an alleged unauthorized access to
information about a person. Availment of the writ requires the existence of a nexus between the
right to privacy on the one hand, and the right to life, liberty or security on the other. Thus, the
existence of a persons right to informational privacy and a 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 are indispensable before the privilege of the writ may be extended.

Without an actionable entitlement in the first place to the right to informational privacy, a habeas
data petition will not prosper.

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 users posts on his wall
(profile page):

(a) Public the default setting; every Facebook user can view the photo;

(b) Friends of Friends only the users Facebook friends and their friends can view the photo;

(c) Friends only the users 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).