Author: Earvin James M.
Atienza
MANILA ELECTRIC CO., ET AL. V. ROSARIO G. LIM (2010)
Petitioner: Manila Electric Company (MERALCO); Alexander Deyto (HR
Staffing Head); Ruben Sapitula (HR VP);
Respondents: Rosario Cherry Gopez Lim (Lim);
Ponente: Carpio Morales, J.
DOCTRINE: Writ of Habeas Data, when proper
[T]he writs of amparo and habeas data will NOT issue to protect
purely property or commercial concerns nor when the grounds invoked
in support of the petitions therefor are vague or doubtful.
FACTS:
1. In 4 June 2008, a letter addressed to Lim (an admin. clerk in
MERALCO) was posted at the door of the metering office of the
Admin. Bldg. of MERALCO in Plaridel, Bulacan, as well as in the
individual lockers of MERALCO Linesmen. The letter reads as
follows:
Cherry Lim:
MATAPOS MONG LAMUNIN LAHAT NG BIYAYA NG
MERALCO, NGAYON NAMAN AY GUSTO MONG
PALAMON ANG BUONG KUMPANYA SA MGA
BUWAYA NG GOBYERNO. KAPAL NG MUKHA MO,
LUMAYAS KA RITO, WALANG UTANG NA LOOB;
2. The HR Staffing Head issued a Memorandum on 4 July 2008
transferring Lim to MERALCOs Alabang Office in view of reports and
accusations of threats against her by anonymous individuals that
undermines her safety and security;
3. Lim sent a letter to HR VP asking for substantiation and an
opportunity to confront the accusations and threats against her that
led to her transfer, which she argues to be essentially punitive in
character. Receiving no response, she filed a petition for the
issuance of a writ of habeas data against MERALCO before RTC
Bulacan. She likewise prayed for the issuance of a TRO;
4. MERALCO countered by arguing that the dispute involved a labor
issue that was properly within the NLRCs jurisdiction and not a
proper subject of the privilege of the writ of habeas data;
5. RTC granted the TRO and the petition for issuance of the writ of
habeas data based on the principle that the privilege, to the courts
mind, extends not only to political activists and extra-legal killings but
also to ordinary citizens whose rights to life and security are
jeopardized;
6. MERALCO raised the matter to the Supreme Court by Rule 45
contending that the RTC lacked jurisdiction and that the issuance of
the writ was made outside the parameters set by the rules.
ISSUES:
WON the issuance of a writ of habeas data was proper in the instant case.
PROVISION: Section 1, A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC (The Rule on the Writ of
Habeas Data), promulgated on 22 January 2008
Section 1. Habeas Data. The writ of habeas data is a remedy
available to any person whose right to privacy in life, liberty or security is
violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public official
or employee or of a private individual or entity engaged in the gathering,
collecting or storing of data or informationregarding the person, family,
home and correspondence of the aggrieved party.
(emphasis and underscoring supplied)
RULING + RATIO:
No.The issue of the case is not a proper subject of the privilege of the Writ of
Habeas Data.
SC ruled that the privilege of the writ was meant to protect the
image, privacy, honor, information, and freedom of information of an
individual and to provide a forum to enforce ones right to the truth
and to informational privacy, thus safeguarding the constitutional
guarantees of a persons right to life, liberty and security against
abuse in this age of information technology. Limiting its scope to
exclude private rights, SC held that:
x x x Castillo v. Cruz underscores the emphasis laid
down in Tapuz v. del Rosario that the writs of
amparo and habeas data will NOT issue to
protect purely property or commercial concerns
nor when the grounds invoked in support of the
petitions therefor are vague or
doubtful. Employment constitutes a property right
under the context of the due process clause of the
Constitution. It is evident that respondents
reservations on the real reasons for her transfer - a
Author: Earvin James M. Atienza
legitimate concern respecting the terms and
conditions of ones employment - are what prompted
her to adopt the extraordinary remedy of habeas
data. Jurisdiction over such concerns is
inarguably lodged by law with the NLRC and the
Labor Arbiters.

In another vein, there is no showing from the

facts presented that petitioners committed any
unjustifiable or unlawful violation of
respondents right to privacy vis-a-vis the
right to life, liberty or security. To argue that
petitioners refusal to disclose the contents of
reports allegedly received on the threats to
respondents safety amounts to a violation of her
right to privacy is at best speculative. x x x

(emphasis supplied)

DISPOSITION: Petition GRANTED. RTCs Decision REVERSED.