Mancusi v. DeForte 392 U.S. 364, 88 S.Ct. 2120, 20 L.

Ed2d 1154
Pollo v. Constantino-David, G.R. No. 181881, 18
(1968),thus “recognized that employees may have a reasonable
October 2011
expectation of privacy against intrusions by police.”
Facts O’Connor v. Ortega 480 U.S. 709 (1987), the Court categorically
Respondent CSC Chair Constantino-David received an declared that “[i]ndividuals do not lose Fourth Amendment
anonymous letter complaint alleging of an anomaly taking place rights merely because they work for the government instead of a
in the Regional Office of the CSC. The respondent then formed a private employer.” In O’Connor the Court recognized that
team and issued a memo directing the team “to back up all the “special needs” authorize warrantless searches involving public
files in the computers found in the Mamamayan Muna (PALD) employees for work-related reasons. The Court thus laid down a
and Legal divisions.” balancing test under which government interests are weighed
against the employee’s reasonable expectation of privacy. This
reasonableness test implicates neither probable cause nor the
warrant requirement, which are related to law enforcement.
Several diskettes containing the back-up files sourced from the
Social Justice Society (SJS) v. Dangerous Drugs Board G.R.
hard disk of PALD and LSD computers were turned over to
Nos. 157870, 158633 and 161658, November 3, 2008, 570 SCRA
Chairperson David. The contents of the diskettes were examined
410, 427, (citing Ople v. Torres, G.R. No. 127685, July 23, 1998,
by the CSC’s Office for Legal Affairs (OLA). It was found that
293 SCRA 141, 169),recognized the fact that there may be such
most of the files in the 17 diskettes containing files copied from
legitimate intrusion of privacy in the workplace.
the computer assigned to and being used by the petitioner,
The Court ruled that the petitioner did not have a reasonable
numbering about 40 to 42 documents, were draft pleadings or
expectation of privacy in his office and computer files.
lettersin connection with administrative cases in the CSC and
other tribunals. On the basis of this finding, Chairperson David
issued the Show-Cause Order, requiring the petitioner, who had As to the second point of inquiry, the Court answered in the
gone on extended leave, to submit his explanation or counter- affirmative. The search authorized by the CSC Chair, the copying
affidavit within five days from notice. of the contents of the hard drive on petitioner’s computer
reasonable in its inception and scope.
In his Comment, petitioner denied the accusations against him
and accused the CSC Officials of “fishing expedition” when they The Court noted that unlike in the case of Anonymous Letter-
unlawfully copied and printed personal files in his computer. Complaint against Atty. Miguel Morales, Clerk of Court,
Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila A.M. Nos. P-08-2519 and
P-08-2520, November 19, 2008, 571 SCRA 361, the case at bar
He was charged of violating R.A. No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and
involves the computer from which the personal files of the
Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees). He
petitioner were retrieved is a government-issued computer,
assailed the formal charge and filed an Omnibus Motion ((For
hence government property the use of which the CSC has
Reconsideration, to Dismiss and/or to Defer) assailing the
absolute right to regulate and monitor.
formal charge as without basis having proceeded from an illegal
search which is beyond the authority of the CSC Chairman, such
power pertaining solely to the court.
MARYNETTE R. GAMBOA, Petitioner,
vs.
The CSC denied the omnibus motion and treated the motion as P/SSUPT. MARLOU C. CHAN, in his capacity as the
the petitioner’s answer to the charge. In view of the absence of PNP-Provincial Director of Ilocos Norte, and P/SUPT.
petitioner and his counsel, and upon the motion of the WILLIAM 0. FANG, in his capacity as Chief,
prosecution, petitioner was deemed to have waived his right to Intelligence Division, PNP Provincial Office, Ilocos
the formal investigation which then proceeded ex parte. Norte, Respondents

The petitioner was dismissed from service. He filed a petition to G.R. No. 193636; July 24, 2012 (SERENO, J.:EN BANC)
the CA which was dismissed by the latter on the ground that it
found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the FACTS
respondents. He filed a motion for reconsideration which was On 8 December 2009, former President Gloria Macapagal-
further denied by the appellate court. Hence, this petition. Arroyo issued Administrative Order No. 275 (A.O. 275),
"Creating an Independent Commission to Address the Alleged
Existence of Private Armies in the Country." The body, which
Issue WON the search conducted by the CSC on the computer
was later on referred to as the Zeñarosa Commission, was
of the petitioner constituted an illegal search and was a violation
formed to investigate the existence of private army groups
of his constitutional right to privacy
(PAGs) in the country with a view to eliminating them before the
10 May 2010 elections and dismantling them permanently in the
Ruling future. Upon the conclusion of its investigation, the Zeñarosa
The search conducted on his office computer and the copying of Commission released and submitted to the Office of the
his personal files was lawful and did not violate his President a confidential report entitled "A Journey Towards
constitutional right. H.O.P.E.: The Independent Commission Against Private
Armies’ Report to the President" (the Report).

Ratio Decidendi Gamboa alleged that the Philippine National Police in Ilocos
In this case, the Court had the chance to present the cases Norte (PNP–Ilocos Norte) conducted a series of surveillance
illustrative of the issue raised by the petitioner. operations against her and her aides, and classified her as
someone who keeps a PAG. Purportedly without the benefit of
data verification, PNP–Ilocos Norte forwarded the information
Katz v. United States 389 U.S. 437 (1967), the US Supreme gathered on her to the Zeñarosa Commission, thereby causing
Court held that the act of FBI agents in electronically recording her inclusion in the Report’s enumeration of individuals
a conversation made by petitioner in an enclosed public maintaining PAGs.
telephone booth violated his right to privacy and constituted a
“search and seizure”. Because the petitioner had a reasonable
Thru local TV news (July 2010) and print media, Gamboa’s
expectation of privacy in using the enclosed booth to make a
name had been tagged as one of those politicians alleged to be
personal telephone call, the protection of the Fourth
maintaining a PAG. Gamboa averred that her association with a
Amendment extends to such area. Moreso, the concurring
PAG also appeared on print media. As a result, she claimed that
opinion of Mr. Justice Harlan noted that the existence of privacy
her malicious or reckless inclusion in the enumeration of
right under prior decisions involved a two-fold requirement:
personalities maintaining a PAG as published in the Report also
first, that a person has exhibited an actual (subjective)
made her, as well as her supporters and other people identified
expectation of privacy; and second, that the expectation be one
with her, susceptible to harassment and police surveillance
that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable (objective).
operations.
Contending that her right to privacy was violated and her Disposition of the Case: Instant petition for review is
reputation maligned and destroyed, Gamboa filed a petition for DENIED. The assailed Decision of the Regional Trial CourtOF
the issuance of a writ of habeas data against respondents in their Laoag City, insofar as it denies Gamboa the privilege of the writ
capacities as officials of the PNP-Ilocos Norte. In her Petition, of habeas data, is AFFIRMED.
she prayed for the following reliefs: (a) destruction of the
unverified reports from the PNP-Ilocos Norte database; (b) SORIANO vs. LAGUARDIA G.R. No. 164785. April 29,
withdrawal of all information forwarded to higher PNP officials;
2009
(c) rectification of the damage done to her honor; (d) ordering
respondents to refrain from forwarding unverified reports
against her; and (e) restraining respondents from making Facts:
baseless reports.
1. Petitioner is a host of the program Ang Dating Daan aired on
UNTV 37 and he made the ff. remarks: “Lehitimong anak ng
ISSUE: Whether the forwarding of information or intelligence
report gathered by the PNP to the Commission is an intrusion to demonyo; sinungaling; Gago ka talaga Michael, masahol ka pa
Gamboa’s right to privacy, thus, rendering the remedy of writ of sa putang babae o di ba. Yung putang babae ang gumagana lang
habeas data proper. doon yung ibaba, [dito] kay Michael ang gumagana ang itaas, o
di ba! O, masahol pa sa putang babae yan. Sabi ng lola ko
HELD: NO. masahol pa sa putang babae yan. Sobra ang kasinungalingan ng
mga demonyong ito.”
PRINCIPLE: The writ of habeas data is an independent and
summary remedy designed to protect the image, privacy, honor, 2. 2 days after, the respondents, before the MTRCB lodged
information, and freedom of information of an individual, and complaints against Soriano. The MTRCB sent Soriano a notice
to provide a forum to enforce one’s right to the truth and to of the hearing. After the hearing, the MTRCB issued an order
informational privacy. It seeks to protect a person’s right to preventively suspending the showing of Dating Daan program
control information regarding oneself, particularly in instances
for 20 days. This suspension is in accordance with Sec 3(d) of
in which such information is being collected through unlawful
means in order to achieve unlawful ends. It must be emphasized PD 1986, the law creating the MTRCB and in relation to its IRR.
that in order for the privilege of the writ to be granted, The MTRCB also ordered to set the case for preliminary
there must exist a nexus between the right to privacy on investigation.
the one hand, and the right to life, liberty or security on
the other. 3. In the Adm. Case No. 01-04, the MTRCB issued a decision
finding petitioner liable for his utterance and imposing upon
GAMBOA’S RIGHT TO PRIVACY NOT VIOLATED him 3 months suspicion from his program “Ang Dating Daan”

It is clear that the issuance of A.O. 275 articulates a legitimate Contention of Soriano:
state aim, which is to investigate the existence of PAGs with the
ultimate objective of dismantling them permanently. Pursuant  The order of preventive suspension imposed by the MTRCB
to the state interest of dismantling PAGs, as well as the foregoing was issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
powers and functions accorded to the Zeñarosa Commission and excess of jurisdiction
the PNP, the latter collected information on individuals
suspected of maintaining PAGs, monitored them and  The IRR is invalid since it provides for the issuance of
counteracted their activities. One of those individuals is herein
petitioner Gamboa. This Court holds that Gamboa was able to preventive suspension orders
sufficiently establish that the data contained in the Report listing
her as a PAG coddler came from the PNP. Contrary to the ruling  There was lack of due process since there was no hearing before
of the trial court, however, the forwarding of information by the the court
PNP to the Zeñarosa Commission was not an unlawful act that
violated or threatened her right to privacy in life, liberty or The order was violative of freedom of religion and freedom
security. of speech and expression

The PNP was rationally expected to forward and share  The law (PD 1986) relied by the MTRCB has no sufficient
intelligence regarding PAGs with the body specifically created standard for its implementation resulting to undue delegation.
for the purpose of investigating the existence of these notorious
Hence, the MTRCB cannot provide for the penalties for
groups. Moreover, the Zeñarosa Commission was explicitly
authorized to deputize the police force in the fulfillment of the violations of its provisions
former’s mandate, and thus had the power to request assistance
from the latter. ISSUE: Was the preventive suspension valid? YES HELD:

The fact that the PNP released information to the  Administrative agencies have powers and functions which may
Zeñarosa Commission without prior communication be administrative, investigatory, regulatory, quasi-legislative, or
to Gamboa and without affording her the opportunity quasijudicial, or a mix of the five, as may be conferred by the
to refute the same cannot be interpreted as a violation Constitution or by statute. They only have such powers or
or threat to her right to privacy since that act is an authority, which are granted, delegated, expressly or impliedly
inherent and crucial component of intelligence- by law.
gathering and investigation.1âwphi1 Additionally, Gamboa
herself admitted that the PNP had a validation system, which
was used to update information on individuals associated with In determining if the agency has certain powers, the inquiry
PAGs and to ensure that the data mirrored the situation on the should be from the law itself. And once ascertained as existing,
field. Thus, safeguards were put in place to make sure that the such authority should be liberally construed.
information collected maintained its integrity and accuracy.
 MTRCB is expressly empowered by statute to regulate and
REMEDY OF WRIT OF HABEAS DATA NOT PROPER supervise television programs to obviate the exhibition or
broadcast of, among others, indecent or immoral materials and
Gamboa failed to establish that respondents were responsible to impose sanctions for violations and, corollarily, to prevent
for this unintended disclosure. In any event, there are other further violations as it investigates
reliefs available to her to address the purported
damage to her reputation, making a resort to the The power to issue a preventive suspension order by the
extraordinary remedy of the writ of habeas data MTRCB is a necessary exercise of its power of regulation and
unnecessary and improper.
supervision. And such power is not only applicable to motion
pictures and publicity materials but also includes TV programs.
 Soriano was not denied due process since the order by the be plausibly treated as prior restraint on future speech. For
MTRCB was issued only after a hearing was held wherein viewed in its proper perspective, the suspension is in the nature
Soriano himself appeared before the Board. Hence, MTRCB duly of an intermediate penalty for uttering an unprotected form of
appraised petition of his having possibly violated the PD 1986 speech. In fine, the suspension meted was simply part of the
and of the administrative complaints filed against him. duties of the MTRCB in the enforcement and administration of
Administrative regulation or subordinate legislation to the law which it is tasked to implement. It does not bar future
promote public interest is a necessity in modern life. The grant speech of petitioner in other television programs; it is a
of the rule-making power to administrative agencies is a permissible subsequent administrative sanction; it should not
relaxation of the principle of separation of powers and is an be confused with a prior restraint on speech.
exception to the non-delegation of legislative powers. Allowing
the MTRCB some reasonable elbowroom in its operations and,  Also, the State has a compelling interest to protect minors,
in the exercise of its statutory disciplinary functions, according against offensive language in TV programs. The Constitution, no
it ample latitude in fixing, by way of an appropriate issuance, less, in fact enjoins the State, as earlier indicated, to promote
administrative penalties with due regard for the severity of the and protect the physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual, and social
offense and attending mitigating or aggravating circumstances, well-being of the youth to better prepare them fulfill their role in
as the case may be, would be consistent with its mandate to the field of nation building. In the same way, the State is
effectively and efficiently regulate the movie and television mandated to support parents in the rearing of the youth for civic
industry. efficiency and the development of moral character. As such, the
welfare of children and the State’s mandate to protect and care
As to petitioner’s contention that he was denied the for them, as parens patriae, constitute a substantial and
equal protection of law: compelling government interest in regulating petitioner’s
utterances in TV broadcast as provided in PD 1986.
 The equal protection clause demands that, “all persons subject
to legislation should be treated alike, under like circumstances Note:  Although the Court upheld the power of the MTRCB to
and conditions both in the privileges conferred and liabilities review and impose sanctions for violation of PD 1986, its order
imposed.” to suspend petitioner was modified.

 In here, petitioner cannot place himself in the same shoes as  The MTRCB may prohibit the broadcast of such television
the INC ministers, who are not facing administrative complaints programs or cancel permits for exhibition but it may not
before the MTRCB. Also, he has no proof that the said ministers, suspend television personalities because this would be beyond
in their TV programs, used language similar to that which he its jurisdiction.
used on his own which necessitated the MTRCB’S disciplinary
action. If the immediate result of the preventive suspension  The MTRCB cannot extend its exercise of regulation beyond
order is that petitioner remains temporarily gagged and is what the law provides.
unable to answer his critics, this does not become a deprivation
of the equal protection guarantee. The Court need not belabor  Hence, MTRCB’s decision and order of suspension should
the fact that the circumstances of petitioner, as host of Ang cover only the television program on which petitioner appeared
Dating Daan, on one hand, and the INC ministers, as hosts of and uttered the offensive and obscene language.
Ang Tamang Daan, on the other, are, within the purview of this
case, simply too different to even consider whether or not there Jal vs. Simangan
is a prima facie indication of oppressive inequality.
Gr. No. 170141
As to petitioner’s contention that the words he uttered Facts:
is a protected religious speech:
In 1991, respondent Jesus Simangan decided to donate a kidney
 The fact that he came out with his statements in a televised to his ailing cousin, Loreto Simangan, in UCLA School of
bible exposition program does not automatically accord them Medicine in Los Angeles, California, U.S.A. Upon request of
the character of a religious discourse. Plain and simple insults UCLA, respondent undertook a series of laboratory tests at the
directed at another person cannot be elevated to the status of National Kidney Institute in Quezon City to verify whether his
blood and tissue type are compatible with Loreto's.
religious speech. His statements constitute no intelligible
defense or refutation of the alleged lies being spread by a rival Fortunately, said tests proved that respondent's blood and tissue
religious group. They simply illustrate that petitioner had type were well-matched with Loreto's.
descended to the level of name-calling and foul-language
discourse. Respondent needed to go to the United States to complete his
preliminary work-up and donation surgery. Hence, to facilitate
 Also, the TV program Ang Dating Daan is a A TV program rated respondent's travel to the United States, UCLA wrote a letter to
the American Consulate in Manila to arrange for his visa. In due
“G” or for general viewership reaches adults and children alike. time, respondent was issued an emergency U.S. visa by the
What may not be obscene speech to adults may be considered American Embassy in Manila.
obscene for children.
Having obtained an emergency U.S. visa, respondent purchased
As to petitioner’s contention on freedom of speech: a round trip plane ticket from petitioner JAL and was issued the
corresponding boarding pass. He was scheduled to a particular
 As a standard of limitation on freedom of speech and press, the flight bound for Los Angeles, California, U.S.A. via Narita,
clear and present danger test is not a magic incantation. It was Japan.
originally designed to determine the latitude which should be On July 29, 1992, the date of his flight, respondent went to Ninoy
given to speech that espouses anti-government action, or to have Aquino International Airport in the company of several relatives
serious and substantial deleterious consequences on the security and friends. He was allowed to check-in at JAL's counter. His
and public order of the community. The clear and present plane ticket, boarding pass, travel authority and personal
danger test “does not lend itself to a simplistic and all embracing articles were subjected to rigid immigration and security
interpretation applicable to all utterances in all forums.” routines.1After passing through said immigration and security
procedures, respondent was allowed by JAL to enter its airplane.
The assailed order penalized petitioner for past speech, not
future speeches in a TV program. Neither can petitioner’s virtual
inability to speak in his program during the period of suspension
While inside the airplane, JAL's airline crew suspected The acts committed by JAL against respondent amounts to bad
respondent of carrying a falsified travel document and imputed faith. As found by the RTC, JAL breached its contract of carriage
that he would only use the trip to the United States as a pretext with respondent in bad faith. JAL personnel summarily and
to stay and work in Japan. The stewardess asked respondent to insolently ordered respondent to disembark while the latter was
show his travel documents. Shortly after, the stewardess along already settled in his assigned seat. He was ordered out of the
with a Japanese and a Filipino haughtily ordered him to stand plane under the alleged reason that the genuineness of his travel
up and leave the plane. Respondent protested, explaining that documents should be verified.
he was issued a U.S. visa. Just to allow him to board the plane,
he pleaded with JAL to closely monitor his movements when the Clearly, JAL is liable for moral damages. It is firmly settled that
aircraft stops over in Narita. His pleas were ignored. He was then moral damages are recoverable in suits predicated on breach of
constrained to go out of the plane.18 In a nutshell, respondent a contract of carriage where it is proved that the carrier was
was bumped off the flight. guilty of fraud or bad faith, as in this case. Inattention to and
lack of care for the interests of its passengers who are entitled to
Displeased by the turn of events, respondent filed an action for its utmost consideration, particularly as to their convenience,
damages. He prayed that he be awarded P3 million as moral amount to bad faith which entitles the passenger to an award of
damages, P1.5 million as exemplary damages and P500,000.00 moral damages. What the law considers as bad faith which may
as attorney's fees. furnish the ground for an award of moral damages would be bad
faith in securing the contract and in the execution thereof, as
JAL denied the material allegations of the complaint. He also well as in the enforcement of its terms, or any other kind of
lodged a counterclaim anchored on respondent's alleged deceit.
wrongful institution of the complaint. It prayed for
JAL is also liable for exemplary damages as its
litigation expenses, exemplary damages and attorney's fees.
 above-mentioned acts constitute wanton, oppressive and
malevolent acts against respondent. Exemplary damages, which
Issue: are awarded by way of example or correction for the public good,
may be recovered in contractual obligations, as in this case, if
1. Whether or not Jal is guilty of contract of carriage defendant acted in wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or
malevolent manner.
2. Whether or not respondent is entitled to moral and
exemplary damages Neglect or malfeasance of the carrier's employees could give
ground for an action for damages. Passengers have a right to be
3. Whether or not Jal is entitled to its counterclaim for treated by the carrier's employees with kindness, respect,
damages. courtesy and due consideration and are entitled to be protected
against personal misconduct, injurious language, indignities
and abuses from such employees.

Rulings: The assessment of P500,000.00 as moral damages and

P100,000.00 as exemplary damages in respondent's favor is, in
1. Yes. That respondent purchased a round trip plane ticket from Our view, reasonable and realistic. This award is reasonably
JAL and was issued the corresponding boarding pass is sufficient to indemnify him for the humiliation and
uncontroverted.49 His plane ticket, boarding pass, travel embarrassment he suffered. This also serves as an example to
authority and personal articles were subjected to rigid discourage the repetition of similar oppressive acts.
immigration and security procedure.50 After passing through
said immigration and security procedure, he was allowed by JAL 3. No. This compulsory counterclaim of JAL arising from the
to enter its airplane to fly to Los Angeles, California, U.S.A. via filing of the complaint may not be granted inasmuch as the
Narita, Japan. Concisely, there was a contract of carriage complaint against it is obviously not malicious or unfounded. It
between JAL and respondent. was filed by respondent precisely to claim his right to damages
against JAL.
Nevertheless, JAL made respondent get off the plane on his
scheduled departure on July 29, 1992. He was not allowed by Well-settled is the rule that the commencement of an action does
JAL to fly. JAL thus failed to comply with its obligation under not per se make the action wrongful and subject the action to
the contract of carriage. damages, for the law could not have meant to impose a penalty
on the right to litigate.

Apart from the fact that respondent's plane ticket, boarding
pass, travel authority and personal articles already passed the During the trial, however, JAL presented a witness who testified
rigid immigration and security routines,JAL, as a common that JAL suffered further damages. Allegedly, respondent
carrier, ought to know the kind of valid travel documents caused the publications of his subject complaint against JAL in
respondent carried. As provided in Article 1755 of the New Civil the newspaper for which JAL suffered damages.
Code: "A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely
as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost Nevertheless, JAL's counterclaim cannot be granted.
JAL is a
diligence of very cautious persons, with a due regard for all the common carrier. JAL's business is mainly with the traveling
circumstances." public. It invites people to avail themselves of the comforts and
advantages it offers. Since JAL deals with the public, its
It bears repeating that the power to admit or not an alien into bumping off of respondent without a valid reason naturally drew
the country is a sovereign act which cannot be interfered with public attention and generated a public issue.
even by JAL.
The publications involved matters about which the public has
In an action for breach of contract of carriage, all that is required the right to be informed because they relate to a public issue.
of plaintiff is to prove the existence of such contract and its This public issue or concern is a legitimate topic of a public
non-performance by the carrier through the latter's failure to comment that may be validly published. Assuming that
carry the passenger safely to his destination. Respondent has respondent, indeed, caused the publication of his complaint, he
complied with these twin requisites. may not be held liable for damages for it. The constitutional
guarantee of freedom of the speech and of the press includes fair
2. Yes. As a general rule, moral damages are not recoverable in commentaries on matters of public interest.
actions for damages predicated on a breach of contract for it is
not one of the items enumerated under Article 2219 of the Civil Hence, there must be an actual malice in order that a
Code.64 As an exception, such damages are recoverable: (1) in discreditable imputation to a public person in his public capacity
cases in which the mishap results in the death of a passenger, as or to a public official may be actionable. To be considered
provided in Article 1764, in relation to Article 2206(3) of the malicious, the libelous statements must be shown to have been
Civil Code; and (2) in the cases in which the carrier is guilty of written or published with the knowledge that they are false or in
fraud or bad faith, as provided in Article 2220. reckless disregard of whether they are false or not.
Considering that the published articles involve matters of public
interest and that its expressed opinion is not malicious but based
on established facts, the imputations against JAL are not
actionable. Therefore, JAL may not claim damages for them.