Supreme Court of the Philippines

Third Division
Vivares, et.al., petitioners, vs. St. Theresa’s College, et.al., respondents,
GR 202666, September 29, 2014; Justice Velasco, Jr.

FACTS: Julia and Julienne, both minors, were graduating high school students at St. Theresa’s College (STC), Cebu. They,
along with several others, took pictures of themselves clad in their undergarments. These pictures were then uploaded by
Angela Lindsay Tan (Angela) on her Facebook profile. Using STC’s computers, Escudero’s students logged in to their
respective personal Facebook accounts and showed her photos of the students drinking liquor and smoking inside a bar and
wearing clothes showing their brassieres along the streets of Cebu. Escudero’s students claimed that access to the photos
was set to public. Escudero reported the matter and, through one of her student’s Facebook page, showed the photos to
Kristine Rose Tigol (Tigol), STC’s Discipline-in-Charge. After an investigation, STC found the students to have violated the
school’s Student Handbook.

The students reported, as required, to the office of Sr. Purisima, STC’s high school principal and ICM Directress. As part of
their penalty, they were barred from joining the commencement exercises. They claimed that during the meeting, they were
verbally abused by STC officials. Parents of the students filed a civil case at the RTC and prayed to prevent the STC from
implementing the sanction and a petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Habeas Data alleging violations of privacy.

The writ was based on the following ground, including: (1) photos were taken for posterity; (2) privacy setting of their
Facebook accounts were set at “Friends Only.”; (3) respondents, being involved in the field of education, ought to have
known of laws that safeguard the right to privacy; (4) photos accessed cannot be used and reproduced without their
consent; (5) intrusion into the Facebook accounts happened at STC’s Computer Laboratory; and (6) all the data that were
extracted were broadcasted by respondents through their memorandum submitted to the RTC.

In denying the petition, the trial court, ruled that petitioners failed to prove the existence of an actual or threatened violation
of the minors’ right to privacy, one of the preconditions for the issuance of the writ of habeas data. It ruled that photos
uploaded on Facebook without restrictions lost their privacy. It noted that STC gathered the photos for the implementation
of the school’s policies on discipline. The petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE: Whether there was an actual or threatened violation of the right to privacy in the life, liberty, or security of the
minors involved in this case.

RULING: There was no violation of the right to privacy of the minor students involved.

Chief Justice Puno, in his speech, explained the three strands of the right to privacy, the most applicable to this case is the
right to informational privacy. It is defined as the right of individuals to control information about themselves. The court
elaborated the in resolving the petition for habeas data, it must take into account the technogologica and social chanegs of
the times in relation to the right in question. It then touched upon the tools available to regulate access to one’s online
social networking (OSN) platform such as Facebook. That, any user has the ability to customize their privacy setting. But,
Facebook states in its poliices that these privacy settings are not foolproof.

With the availability of numerous avenues for information gathering and data sharing nowadays, not to mention each
system’s inherent vulnerability to attacks and intrusions, there is more reason that every individual’s right to control said
flow of information should be protected and that each individual should have at least a reasonable expectation of privacy in
cyberspace. Facebook has privacy tools designed to set up barriers to broaden or limit the visibility of his or her specific
content from another user’s point of view.

The availability of these tools does not mean that any Facebook user automatically has a protected expectation of privacy in
all of his or her Facebook activities. One must manifest the intention to keep certain posts private through the employment
of measures to prevent access or limite its visibility. The utilization of these privacy tools is the manifestation, in cyber
world, of the user’s invocation of his or her right to informational privacy.

The court did not give weight to the claim of petitioner that the photos were viewable only by the five students without any
corroborating evidence. On the contrary, the students of Escudero were able to view the photos in question as well as other
photos posted in their Facebook accounts. There were no special means employed to be able to biew the alleged private
photos. It is reasonable to assume that the photos were viewable either by their Facebook friends or the public at large.
Therefore, they cannot invoke the protection attached to the right to informational privacy.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby DENIED. The Decision of the Regional Trial Court is hereby
AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED.

Steps Undertaken:

1. Read the syllabus to know the gist and highlights of the case
2. Prepared an outline of the digest
a. Case Title or Caption
b. Facts
c. Issue
d. Ruling/Ratio
e. Fallo
3. Proceeded with reading the full text
4. Filled out the different parts with the details.
a. Presented the facts of the case in chronological manner
b. Omitted details which are not relevant, such as full name of the personalities cited
c. Simplified sentences by omitting related words joined by the conductions and/or
d. Searched in the text of the case the basis of the court in denying the petition
e. Presented the general discussion of the court on the right to privacy
f. Narrowed down to the specific contention of each parties and basis of their respective arguments
g. Applied the general and specific discussions to the issue being resolved
 Supreme Court of the Philippines
Third Division
Vinuya, et al., in their capacity and as members of the “Malaya Lolas
Organizations,” petitioners, vs. Romulo, et.al., respondents
G.R. No. 162230. August 12, 2014, BERSAMIN, J.

FACTS: This is a Motion for Reconsideration

In their Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration, petitioners stress that it was highly improper for the April 28,
2010 decision to lift commentaries from at least three sources without proper attribution — an article published in
2009 in the Yale Law Journal of International Law; a book published by the Cambridge University Press in 2005;
and an article published in 2006 in the Western Reserve Journal of International Law — and make it appear that
such commentaries supported its arguments for dismissing the petition, when in truth the plagiarized sources even
made a strong case in favour of petitioners’ claims.

ISSUE:

RULING: