You are on page 1of 2

VIVARES vs. ST. THERESAS COLLEGE (GR No.

202666)
September 29, 2014

Petitioners: Rhonda Ave S. Vivares and Sps. Margarita and David Suzara
Respondents: St. Theresas College, Mylene Rheza T. Escudero and John Does
Nature: Petition for review on certiorari

FACTS:
Julia and Julienne, both minors, were graduating high school students at St. Theresas College Cebu.
In January 2012, along with several others, while changing into their swimsuits for a beach party they were about to attend,
they took digital pictures of themselves only in their undergarments which Angela posted on her Facebook profile.
Escudero, a computer teacher at STC learned from her students that some seniors at STC posted such photos. She asked
them if they knew who the girls were and were readily identified as Julia, Julienne and Chloe, among others.
Escudero reported the matter to Tigol, STCs discipline-in-charge for appropriate action.
o STC found the identified students to have deported themselves in a manner proscribed by the Student Handbook:
Possession of alcoholic drinks outside the school campus
Engaging in immoral, indecent, obscene or lewd acts
Smoking and drinking alcoholic beverages in public places
Apparel that exposes the underwear
Clothing that advocates unhealthy behavior
Posing and uploading pictures on the Internet that entail ample body exposure
The students reported to Sr. Purisima, the STCs high school principal.
o They claimed that they were castigated and verbally abused by the STC officials
o Sr. Purisima informed their parents that as penalty, they will not be allowed to join the commencement exercises
A week before graduation, Angelas Mother (Dr. Tan) filed a Petition for Injunction and Damages before the RTC of Cebu
against STC, praying that defendants be enjoined from precluding Angela from joining the commencement exercises. The
mother of Julia (Vivares) joined as an intervenor.
RTC issued TRO allowing the students to attend graduation, STC filed a motion for reconsideration, and nevertheless
sanctioned the students.
Petitioners filed a Writ of Habeas Data:
o The photos of the students in their undergarments were taken for posterity
o The privacy setting was set at Friends Only reasonable expectation of privacy on the part of the students
o Respondents, being involved in the field of education, ought to have known the laws that safeguard the right to
privacy girls, whose privacy are invaded, are the victims
o Photos accessed belong to the girls cannot be used and reproduced without their consent Escudero violated by
saving copies and subsequently showing them to STCs officials
Respondents:
o Petitioners are not the proper parties
o Petitioners are engaging in forum shopping
o Instant case in not one where a writ of habeas data may issue
o No violation of their right to privacy
RTC: Dismissed the petition for habeas data petitioners failed to prove the existence of an actual or threatened violation of
the minors right to privacy

ISSUES:
WON habeas data should be issued given the factual milieu.
WON there was indeed an actual or threatened violation of the right to privacy in the life, liberty or security of the minors (NO)

RATIO:
WRIT OF HABEAS DATA: remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in life, liberty or security is violated by an
unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity engaged in gathering, collecting or
storing of data or information regarding the person, family, home and correspondence of the aggrieved party
o The writ will not issue on the basis merely of an alleged unauthorized access to information about a person.
o Given the nature of an online social network (1) that it facilitates and promotes real-time interaction among millions,
if not billions, of users, sans the spatial barriers; and (2) that any information uploaded in OSNs leaves an indelible
trace in the providers database, which is outside the control of the end-users is there a right to informational
privacy in OSN activities of its users?

PROCEDURAL ISSUES:
Respondents alleged that:
o Writ of habeas data was enacted solely for the purpose of complementing the Writ of Amparo in cases of extralegal
killings and enforced disappearances (NO)
Court: Habeas data was designed to safeguard individual freedom from abuse in the information age
erroneous to limit its applicability to extralegal killings and enforced disappearances only
o Habeas data may not be issue against STC, it not being an entity engaged in the gathering, collecting, or storing of
data regarding person, family, home (NO)
Habeas data is a protection against unlawful acts or omissions of public officials and of private individuals or
entities engaged in gathering, collecting, or storing data about the aggrieved party and his or her
correspondences, or about his or her family need not be in the business of collecting or storing data
Engaged to do or take part in something

SUBSTANTIVE ISSUE: WON STC violated petitioners daughters right to privacy (NO)

Right to Informational Privacy on Facebook


o The Right to Informational Privacy
Justice Puno: There are three strands of the right to privacy: (1) locational or situational privacy; (2)
informational privacy; (3) decisional privacy
Right to informational privacy: right to control information about themselves
Due to millions of subscribers to Online Social Networks, privacy is no longer grounded in reasonable
expectation, but rather in some theoretical protocol known as wishful thinking.
Up to what extent is the right to privacy protected in OSNs? Bear in mind that informational privacy involves
personal information, yet the very purpose of OSN is socializing sharing a myriad of information, some of
which would have otherwise remained personal
o Facebooks privacy tools: a response to the clamor for privacy in OSN activities
Purpose of OSN is precisely to give users the ability to interact and to stay connected to other members
Facebook connections are established through the process of friending another user, so that they can view
any and all Public and Friends Only posts of the other Friending gives the Facebook friend access
to his or her profile and shares certain information to the latter
To address concerns about privacy: different privacy tools to regulate access to a users profile.
User can regulate the visibility and accessibility of digital images by selecting desired privacy
settings: Public, Friends of Friends, Friends, Custom, Only me Facebook extends its users an
avenue to make the availability of their activities reflect their choice as to when and to what extend
to disclose the facts about themselves
STC did not violate petitioners daughters right to privacy
o Petitioners argued that the privacy settings on Facebook limit who can see what information gives users a
subjective expectation of privacy. COURT AGREED. HOWEVER, the Court also ruled that before one can have an
expectation of privacy on her Facebook information, he or she must manifest an intention to keep that information
private by utilizing privacy tools.
o 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. 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 right to privacy by viewing and copying the
pictures on the minors Facebook pages.

You might also like