writ of habeas data cases

8/18/2019 Writ of Habeas Data Cases

1/10

G.R. No. 184769 October 5, 2010

MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, ALEAN!ER ". !EYTO and R#$EN A. "APIT#LA, Petitioners,vs.RO"ARIO GOPE% LIM, Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

CARPIO MORALE", J.:

The Court is once again confronted with an opportunity to define the evoving !etes and "ounds of thewrit of ha"eas data. #ay an e!poyee invo$e the re!edies avaia"e under such writ where ane!poyer decides to transfer her wor$pace on the "asis of copies of an anony!ous etter postedtherein % i!puting to her disoyaty to the co!pany and caing for her to eave, which i!putation itinvestigated "ut fais to infor! her of the detais thereof&

Rosario '. (i! )respondent*, aso $nown as Cherry (i!, is an ad!inistrative cer$ at the #ania EectricCo!pany )#ER+(CO*.

On une -, //0, an anony!ous etter was posted at the door of the #etering Office of the +d!inistration "uiding of #ER+(CO Paride, 1uacan Sector, at which respondent is assigned,denouncing respondent. The etter reads2

Cherry (i!2

#+T+POS #ON' (+#3NIN (+4+T N' 1I5+5+ N' #ER+(CO, N'+5ON N+#+N +5 '3STO#ON' P+(+#ON +N' 13ON' 63#P+N5+ S+ #'+ 137+5+ N' 'O15ERNO. 6+P+( N' #364+#O, (3#+5+S 6+ RITO, 7+(+N' 3T+N' N+ (OO18.9

Copies of the etter were aso inserted in the oc$ers of #ER+(CO ines!en. Infor!ed a"out it,

respondent reported the !atter on une :, //0 to the Paride Station of the Phiippine Nationa Poice.

1y #e!orandu!; dated uy -, //0, petitioner +e

Respondent, "y etter of uy 9/, //0 addressed to petitioner Ru"en +. Sapitua, icePresident and4ead of #ER+(CO=s 4u!an Resource +d!inistration, appeaed her transfer and reuested for adiaogue so she coud voice her concerns and !isgivings on the !atter, cai!ing that the >punitive>nature of the transfer a!ounted to a denia of due process. C&t&'( t)e (r*e+&'( tr-e+ ro/ )er

re&e'ce &' P/'( to A+b'( ' bc3 e't&+, ' -&o+t&o' o t)e ro-&&o' o' obec*r&t o t)e&r Co++ect&-e $r(&'&'( A(ree/e't C$A, reo'e't eree )er t)o*()t o't)e ++e(e t)ret to )er ec*r&t &' t)& &e:

< < < <

I fee that it woud have "een "etter . . . if you coud have inti!ated to !e the nature of the aegedaccusations and threats so that at east I coud have found out if these are credi"e or even serious. 1utas you stated, these ca!e fro! un$nown individuas and the way they were handed, it appears that theveracity of these accusations and threats to "e AsicB highy suspicious, dou"tfu or are Fust !ere Fo$es if they e


2/10

1y respondent=s aegation, petitioners= unawfu act and o!ission consisting of their continued faiureand refusa to provide her with detais or infor!ation a"out the aeged report which #ER+(COpurportedy receivedconcerning threats to her safety and security a!ount to a vioation of her right toprivacy in ife, i"erty and security, correcti"e "y ha"eas data. Respondent thus prayed for the issuanceof a writ co!!anding petitioners to fie a written return containing the foowing2

a* a fu discosure of the data or infor!ation a"out respondent in reation to the report

purportedy received "y petitioners on the aeged threat to her safety and securityG the nature of such data and the purpose for its coectionG

"* the !easures ta$en "y petitioners to ensure the confidentiaity of such data or infor!ationGand

c* the currency and accuracy of such data or infor!ation o"tained.

+dditionay, respondent prayed for the issuance of a Te!porary Restraining Order )TRO* enFoiningpetitioners fro! effecting her transfer to the #ER+(CO +a"ang Sector.

1y Order

H

of +ugust , //0, 1ranch J of the 1uacan RTC directed petitioners to fie their verifiedwritten return. +nd "y Order of Septe!"er :, //0, t)e tr&+ co*rt (r'te reo'e't


3/10

The ha"eas data rue, in genera, is designed to protect "y !eans of Fudicia co!paint the i!age,privacy, honor, infor!ation, and freedo! of infor!ation of an individua. It is !eant to provide a foru! toenforce one=s right to the truth and to infor!ationa privacy, thus safeguarding the constitutionaguarantees of a person=s right to ife, i"erty and security against a"use in this age of infor!ationtechnoogy.

It "ears reiteration that i$e the writ of a!paro, ha"eas data was conceived as a response, given the

ac$ of effective and avaia"e re!edies, to address the ehighy suspicious, dou"tfu or are Fust !ere

Fo$es if they e90 +nd she even suspects that her transfer to another pace of wor$ >"etrayAsBthe rea intent of !anage!entB> and coud "e a >punitive !ove.> 4er posture unwittingy concedes thatthe issue is a"orreated.

74ERE@ORE, the petition & GRANTE!. The assaied Septe!"er , //0 !ec&&o' o t)e $*+c'

RTC, $r'c) 7 &' "P. Proc. No. 21@?M?2008 & )ereb REER"E! ' "ET A"I!E . SP. Proc. No.9;#//0 is, accordingy, DIS#ISSED.

No costs.

SO ORDERED.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_184769_2010.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_184769_2010.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_184769_2010.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_184769_2010.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_184769_2010.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_184769_2010.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_184769_2010.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_184769_2010.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_184769_2010.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_184769_2010.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_184769_2010.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_184769_2010.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_184769_2010.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_184769_2010.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_184769_2010.html#fnt18


4/10

G.R. No. 18@5@@ "ete/ber 25, 2012

IN TBE MATTER O TBE PETITION OR TBE DRIT O AMPARO AN! TBE DRIT O BA$EA"

!ATA IN AOR O RANCI" "AE%, Petitioner,vs.GLORIA MACAPAGAL ARROYO, GEN. BERMOGENE" E"PERON, P!IR. GEN. AELINO RA%ON,22N! MICO, CAPT. LADRENCE $ANAAG, "GT. CA"TILLO, CAPT. ROMMEL G#TIERRE%, CAPT.>AFE O$LIGA!O, CPL. ROMAN ITO #INT ANA, PT. >ERICO !##IL, CPL. ARIELONTANILLA, A CERTAIN CAPT. ALCA Y!O, A CERTAIN IR"T "ERGEANT, PT. %AL!Y O"+O, ACERTAIN PC. "ONNY, A CERTAIN CPL. >AME", A CERTAIN >OEL, RO!ERICF CLAN%A '>EREY GOME%, Respondents.

@or action "y the Court is the #otion for Reconsideration9 dated Septe!"er H, /9/ fied "y petitioner @rancis SaeK of our Resoution dated +ugust ;9, /9/ denying the Petition for Review ; he fied on uy9, //0.

The Office of the Soicitor 'enera )OS'* fied its Co!!ent - thereon stating that it does not find cogentgrounds to warrant setting aside our decision.

+ntecedent @acts

On #arch H, //0, the petitioner fied with the Court a petition to "e granted the priviege of the writs of a!paro and ha"eas data with prayers for te!porary protection order, inspection of pace and productionof docu!ents.: In the petition, he eoe> approached and infor!ed hi! of his !arita status and current Fo" as a "a$er in Caapan,#indoro Orienta. >oe> inuired if the petitioner was sti invoved with +N+6P+7IS. 7hen as$ed "y

the C+ Fustices during the hearing if the petitioner had gone ho!e to Caapan after having fied thepetition, he answered in the negative e


5/10

herein prayed for shoud "e considered as eto order respondents to produce any docu!ents su"!itted to any of the! in the!atter of any report on the case of @R+NCIS S+E, incuding a !iitary inteigence reports.>

< < < <

1oth the rues on the writs of +!paro and 4a"eas Data )Section 9J, +.#. No. /J9SC and Section9H, +.#. No. /099HSC* provide that the parties sha esta"ish their cai!s "y su"stantia evidence.Not ony was petitioner una"e to esta"ish his entite!ent to the priviege of the writs appied for, thee


6/10

+ carefu perusa of the su"Fect petition shows that the C+ correcty found that the petition was "ereft of any aegation as to what particuar acts or o!ission of respondents vioated or threatened petitioner=sright to ife, i"erty and security. B& c+&/ t)t )e &'co//*'&co +c3 cre&b&+&t as he wasgiven a ceuar phone and aowed to go "ac$ to Orienta #indoro. The C+ aso correcty hed thatpetitioner faied to present su"stantia evidence that his right to ife, i"erty and security were vioated, or how his right to privacy was threatened "y respondents. 4e did not specify the particuar docu!ents to"e secured, their ocation or what particuar govern!ent office had custody thereof, and who has

possession or contro of the sa!e. 4e !erey prayed that the respondents "e ordered >to produce anydocu!ents su"!itted to any of the! in the !atter of any report on the case of @R+NCIS S+E,incuding a !iitary inteigence reports.>

Petitioner assais the C+ in faiing to appreciate that in his +ffidavit and @act Sheet, he had specificaydetaied the vioation of his right to privacy as he was paced in the Order of 1atte and pro!ised to havehis record ceared if he woud cooperate and "eco!e a !iitary asset. 4owever, despite uestionspropounded "y the C+ +ssociate ustices during the hearing, he sti faied to enighten the appeatecourt as to what actuay transpired to ena"e said court to deter!ine whether his right to ife, i"erty or security had actuay "een vioated or threatened. Records "ear out the unsu"stantiated cai!s of petitioner which Fustified the appeate court=s dis!issa of the petition.

+s to petitioner=s argu!ent that the C+ erred in deeting the President as partyrespondent, we find thesa!e aso to "e without !erit. The Court has aready !ade it cear in !-& -. Mc(+?Arroo t)tt)e Pre&e't, *r&'( )& or )er te'*re o o&ce or ct*+ &'c*/be'c, / 'ot be *e &' 'c&-&+ or cr&/&'+ ce, ' t)ere & 'o 'ee to ro-&e or &t &' t)e Co't&t*t&o' or +. It &++e(re t)e &('&t o t)e )&() o&ce o t)e Pre&e't, t)e Be o "tte, & t)e Pre&e't c' ber((e &'to co*rt +&t&(t&o' )&+e er-&'( *c). @urther!ore, it is i!portant that the President"e freed fro! any for! of harass!ent, hindrance or distraction to ena"e the President to fuy attend tothe perfor!ance of officia duties and functions.99 )Citation o!itted*

4ence, the petitioner fied the instant !otion for reconsideration.9

Petitioner’s Arguments

Contrary to the C+=s findings, it had "een shown "y su"stantia evidence and even "y the respondents=own ad!issions that the petitioner=s ife, i"erty and security were threatened. #iitary personne, who!the petitioner had na!ed and descri"ed, $new where to get hi! and they can do so with ease. 4e aso"eca!e a !iitary asset, "ut under duress, as the respondents had docu!ents aegedy in$ing hi! tothe CPP and incuding hi! in the order of "atte. The petitioner cai!s that the foregoing circu!stanceswere not denied "y the respondents.

The petitioner i$ewise chaenges the C+=s finding that he was not rendered inco!!unicado as he waseven provided with a ceuar phone. The petitioner argues that the phone o'+ (&-e' to )&/ for the purpose of co!!unicating with the respondents !atters reative to his infitration activities of targetega organiKations.

The petitioner cites Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo,9; which pronounced that >in the a!paroconte.9- +ccording to the petitioner, his freedo! fro! fear was undou"tedy vioated, hence, to hi!pertains a cause of action. +nent the uantu! of proof reuired in a petition for the issuance of the writof a!paro, !ere su"stantia evidence is sufficient. The petition >is not an action to deter!ine cri!inaguit reuiring proof "eyond reasona"e dou"t, or ia"iity for da!ages reuiring preponderance of evidence, or ad!inistrative responsi"iity reuiring su"stantia evidence that wi reuire fu ande.9:

Sady, in the petitioner=s case, the court not ony de!anded a greater uantu! of proof than what therues reuire, "ut it aso accorded specia preference for the respondents= evidence.

The petitioner also cites a speech delivered in Siliman Universit ! former "hief Justice#enato Puno who ethe re!edy of ha"eas data can "e used "y any citiKen against anygovern!enta agency or register to find out what infor!ation is hed a"out his or her person.> Theperson can i$ewise >reuest the rectification or even the destruction of erroneous data gathered and$ept against hi! or her.> In the petitioner=s case, he specificay sought the production of the order of "atte, which aegedy incuded his na!e, and other records which supposedy contain erroneous datareative to his invove!ent with the CPP.

OS'=s Co!!ent

In the respondents= co!!ent9H fied "y the OS', it is generay cai!ed that the petitioner advances no

cogent grounds to Fustify the reversa of the Court=s Resoution dated +ugust ;9, /9/.

The Court=s Disuisition

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/sep2012/gr_183533_2012.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/sep2012/gr_183533_2012.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/sep2012/gr_183533_2012.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/sep2012/gr_183533_2012.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/sep2012/gr_183533_2012.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/sep2012/gr_183533_2012.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/sep2012/gr_183533_2012.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/sep2012/gr_183533_2012.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/sep2012/gr_183533_2012.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/sep2012/gr_183533_2012.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/sep2012/gr_183533_2012.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/sep2012/gr_183533_2012.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/sep2012/gr_183533_2012.html#fnt16


7/10

7hie the issuance of the writs sought "y the et&t&o'er c''ot be (r'te, t)e Co*rt 'e-ert)e+e&' /+e (ro*' to /o& t)e Reo+*t&o' te A*(*t @1, 2010.

The petition confor!s to thereuire!ents of the Rues on the7rits of +!paro and 4a"eas Data

Section :9J of +.#. No. /J9SC )Rue on the 7rit of +!paro* and Section H90 of +.#. /099HSC)Rue on the 7rit of 4a"eas Data* provide for what the said petitions shoud contain.

I' t)e ree't ce, t)e Co*rt 'ote t)t t)e et&t&o' or t)e &*'ce o t)e r&-&+e(e o t)e r&to /ro ' )be t & *&c&e't to &t co'te't . The petitioner !ade specific aegationsreative to his persona circu!stances and those of the respondents. The petitioner i$ewise indicatedparticuar acts, which are aegedy vioative of his rights and the participation of so!e of therespondents in their co!!ission. +s to the prereuisite conduct and resut of an investigation prior tothe fiing of the petition, it was eoe> once inuired fro! the petitioner if the atter wassti invoved with +N+6P+7IS. 1y itsef, such cai! cannot esta"ish with certainty that the petitioner was "eing !onitored. T)e e'co*'ter )e'e o'ce and the petitioner, in his peadings, nowherestated that su"seuent to the ti!e he was as$ed a"out his invove!ent with +N+6P+7IS, he stinoticed >oe> conducting surveiance operations on hi!. 4e aeged that he was "rought to the ca!p of the /-th Infantry 1rigade in NauFan, Orienta #indoro "ut was sent ho!e at :2// p.!. The petitioner and the respondents have conficting cai!s a"out what transpired thereafter. The petitioner insistedthat he was "rought against his wi and was as$ed to stay "y the respondents in paces under the

atter=s contro. The respondents, on the other hand, averred that it was the petitioner who vountariyoffered his service to "e a !iitary asset, "ut was reFected as the for!er sti dou"ted his !otives andaffiiations.

Section 9 of "oth the Rues on the 7rit of +!paro and 4a"eas Data is efreedo! fro! threat>.9

It !ust "e stressed, however, that such >threat> !ust find rationa "asis on the surroundingcircu!stances of the case. In this case, the petition was !ainy anchored on the aeged threats against

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/sep2012/gr_183533_2012.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/sep2012/gr_183533_2012.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/sep2012/gr_183533_2012.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/sep2012/gr_183533_2012.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/sep2012/gr_183533_2012.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/sep2012/gr_183533_2012.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/sep2012/gr_183533_2012.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/sep2012/gr_183533_2012.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/sep2012/gr_183533_2012.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/sep2012/gr_183533_2012.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/sep2012/gr_183533_2012.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/sep2012/gr_183533_2012.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/sep2012/gr_183533_2012.html#fnt21


8/10

his ife, i"erty and security "y reason of his incusion in the !iitary=s order of "atte, the surveiance and!onitoring activities !ade on hi!, and the inti!idation eIndeed, eventhe i"era standard of su"stantia evidence de!ands so!e adeuate evidence.>;/

The President cannot "eauto!aticay dropped as arespondent pursuant to the doctrineof co!!and responsi"iity

In Norie RodrigueK v. 'oria #acapaga +rroyo, et a.,;9 the Court stated2

a. Co!!and responsi"iity of the President

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/sep2012/gr_183533_2012.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/sep2012/gr_183533_2012.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/sep2012/gr_183533_2012.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/sep2012/gr_183533_2012.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/sep2012/gr_183533_2012.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/sep2012/gr_183533_2012.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/sep2012/gr_183533_2012.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/sep2012/gr_183533_2012.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/sep2012/gr_183533_2012.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/sep2012/gr_183533_2012.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/sep2012/gr_183533_2012.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/sep2012/gr_183533_2012.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/sep2012/gr_183533_2012.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/sep2012/gr_183533_2012.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/sep2012/gr_183533_2012.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/sep2012/gr_183533_2012.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/sep2012/gr_183533_2012.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/sep2012/gr_183533_2012.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/sep2012/gr_183533_2012.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/sep2012/gr_183533_2012.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/sep2012/gr_183533_2012.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/sep2012/gr_183533_2012.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/sep2012/gr_183533_2012.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/sep2012/gr_183533_2012.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/sep2012/gr_183533_2012.html#fnt31


9/10

4aving esta"ished the appica"iity of the doctrine of co!!and responsi"iity in a!paro proceedings, it!ust now "e resoved whether the president, as co!!anderinchief of the !iitary, can "e hedresponsi"e or accounta"e for e


10/10

affidavits reuired under Section :)c* of the Rue on the 7rit of +!paro were not su"!itted together with the petition and it was rued that the defect was fuy cured when the petitioner and the witnesspersonay testified to prove the truth of their aegations in the hearings hed "efore the C+. In theinstant case, the defective verification was not the soe reason for the C+=s denia of the petition for theissuance of the writs of a!paro and ha"eas data. Nonetheess, it !ust "e stressed that athough ruesof procedure pay an i!portant rue in effectivey ad!inistering Fustice, pri!acy shoud not "e accordedto the! especiay in the instant case where there was at east su"stantia co!piance with the

reuire!ents and where petitioner hi!sef testified in the hearings to attest to the veracity of the cai!swhich he stated in his petition.

To concude, co!piance with technica rues of procedure is idea "ut it cannot "e accorded pri!acy. Inthe proceedings "efore the C+, the petitioner hi!sef testified to prove the veracity of his aegationswhich he stated in the petition. 4ence, the defect in the verification attached to the petition. 4ence, thedefect in the verification attached to the petition was dee!ed cured.

74ERE@ORE, pre!ises considered, the et&t&o'erH /ot&o' or reco'&ert&o' & !ENIE! DITBINALITY.

SO ORDERED.

writ of habeas data cases

Documents