Section 3, Article III, 1987 Constitution

Vivares vs St. Theresas College

GR 202666, 29 Sept. 2014

Facts: Daluz, Suzara, among others, who were graduating high school students of
St. Theresas College, took digital pictures of themselves being covered only in their
undergarments, drinking hard liquor, and smoking cigarettes. The photos were
shown to Escudero, a computer teacher at STCs HS department. She reported the
matter and the identified students were then barred from joining their
commencement exercises.
Petitioners filed before the RTC a Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Habeas
Data. The RTC dismissed the petition for habeas data. Hence, this certiorari.

Issue: Was there an actual or threatened violation of the right to privacy in the life,
liberty, or security of the minors that will entitle them to the writ of habeas data? Up
to what extent is the right protected in Facebook and other social networking sites?
Did STC violate the right to privacy of the minors?

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.
Using Facebooks privacy tools, users can choose as to when and to what
extent to disclose facts about themselves and to put others in the position of
receiving such confidences. The utilization of these privacy tools is the
manifestation, in cyber world, of the users invocation of his or her right to
informational privacy.
In the case at bar, the petitioners childrens Facebook accounts, allegedly,
were under Only Friends. However, the Court said that setting the privacy to
Friends is no assurance since a users own Facebook friend can share said content
or tag his or her own Facebook friend thereto, resulting to a greater number of users
who can view the content. In addition, respondent STC got the information from
persons who had legitimate access to the said posts. Clearly, STC did not violate
petitioners daughters right to privacy. Hence, the petition for habeas data is
denied.