Rhonda Vivares vs St.

Theresas College
In January 2012, Angela Tan, a high school student at St. Theresas College (STC), uploaded on
Facebook several pictures of her and her classmates (Nenita Daluz and Julienne Suzara)
wearing only their undergarments.

Thereafter, some of their classmates reported said photos to their teacher, Mylene Escudero.
Escudero, through her students, viewed and downloaded said pictures. She showed the said
pictures to STCs Discipline-in-Charge for appropriate action.

Later, STC found Tan et al to have violated the students handbook and banned them from
marching in their graduation ceremonies scheduled in March 2012.

The issue went to court but despite a TRO (temporary restraining order) granted by the Cebu
RTC enjoining the school from barring the students in the graduation ceremonies, STC still
barred said students.

Subsequently, Rhonda Vivares, mother of Nenita, and the other mothers filed a petition for the
issuance of the writ of habeas data against the school. They argued, among others, that:

1. The privacy setting of their childrens Facebook accounts was set at Friends Only. They, thus,
have a reasonable expectation of privacy which must be respected.

2. The photos accessed belong to the girls and, thus, cannot be used and reproduced without
their consent. Escudero, however, violated their rights by saving digital copies of the photos and
by subsequently showing them to STCs officials. Thus, the Facebook accounts of the children
were intruded upon;

3. The intrusion into the Facebook accounts, as well as the copying of information, data, and
digital images happened at STCs Computer Laboratory;

They prayed that STC be ordered to surrender and deposit with the court all soft and printed
copies of the subject data and have such data be declared illegally obtained in violation of the
childrens right to privacy.

The Cebu RTC eventually denied the petition. Hence, this appeal.

ISSUE: Whether or not the petition for writ of habeas data is proper.

HELD: Yes, it is proper but in this case, it will not prosper.

Contrary to the arguments of STC, the Supreme Court ruled that:

1. The petition for writ of habeas data can be availed of even if this is not a case of extralegal
killing or enforced disappearance; and

2. The writ of habeas data can be availed of against STC even if it is not an entity engaged in the
business of gathering, collecting, or storing data or information regarding the person, family,
home and correspondence of the aggrieved party.

First, the Rule on Habeas Data does not state that it can be applied only in cases of extralegal
killings or enforced disappearances. Second, nothing in the Rule would suggest that the habeas
data protection shall be available only against abuses of a person or entity engaged in the
business of gathering, storing, and collecting of data.

Right to Privacy on Social Media (Online Networking Sites)

The Supreme Court ruled that if an online networking site (ONS) like Facebook has privacy tools,
and the user makes use of such privacy tools, then he or she has a reasonable expectation of
privacy (right to informational privacy, that is). Thus, such privacy must be respected and
protected.

In this case, however, there is no showing that the students concerned made use of such privacy
tools. Evidence would show that that their post (status) on Facebook were published as Public.

Facebook has the following settings to control as to who can view a users posts on his wall
(profile page):

(a) Public the default setting; every Facebook user can view the photo;

(b) Friends of Friends only the users Facebook friends and their friends can view the photo;

(c) Friends only the users Facebook friends can view the photo;

(d) Custom the photo is made visible only to particular friends and/or networks of the Facebook
user; and

(e) Only Me the digital image can be viewed only by the user.

The default setting is Public and if a user wants to have some privacy, then he must choose any
setting other than Public. If it is true that the students concerned did set the posts subject of this
case so much so that only five people can see them (as they claim), then how come most of their
classmates were able to view them. This fact was not refuted by them. In fact, it was their
classmates who informed and showed their teacher, Escudero, of the said pictures. Therefore, it
appears that Tan et al never use the privacy settings of Facebook hence, they have no
reasonable expectation of privacy on the pictures of them scantily clad.

STC did not violate the students right to privacy. 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 (to which the students and their parents
agreed to in the first place because of the fact that they enrolled their children there)