05. VIVARES VS. ST.

THERESE COLLEGE
GR No. 202666, September 29, 2014

FACTS

Sometime in January 2012, while changing into their swimsuits for a beach party they were about to
attend, Julia and Julienne both minors, 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. A computer teacher at minors’ school, Mylene Rheza T. Escuedro, discovered the pictures. The
photos were reported to the Discipline in Charge and the girls were found to have violated the Student
Handbook. The students were sent to the Principal’s office where they claimed that they were chastised
and verbally abused. They are also barred from joining the commencement exercises.

Angela’s mother filed a Petition for Injunction and Damages asking that the school be denied from
prohibiting the girls from attending commencement. A TRO was granted allowing the girls to attend
graduation and the Plaintiffs filed a writ of habeas data alleging an invasion of their children’s privacy by
the Defendant.

The Regional Trial Court dismissed the petition for habeas data because petitioners failed to prove the
existence of an actual or threatened violation of the minors’ right to privacy.

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 involved in the case.

HELD

A writ of habeas data protects an individual’s right against invasion of informational privacy, and a nexus
between the right to privacy and the right to life, liberty or security must be proven.

In this case, the core issue was the right to informational privacy, defined as the right of individuals to
control information about themselves. The petitioners argued that the privacy settings on Facebook limit
who can see what information. This gives users a subjective expectation of privacy. The Court agreed.
However, the Court also ruled that before one can have an expectation of privacy in her Facebook
information, he or she must manifest an intention to keep that information private by utilizing privacy
tools. If someone posts something on Facebook and does not limit who can see that information, there is
no expectation of privacy. The photos in the case at hand were all viewable by the friends of the girls or
by the general public. Therefore, the Court ruled that the Defendants did not violate the minors’ privacy
rights by viewing and copying the pictures on the minors’ Facebook pages.