RHONDA AVE S. VIVARES and SPS. MARGARITA and DAVID SUZARA, vs. ST. THERESA'S COLLEGE, MYLENE RHEZA T. ESCUDERO, and JOHN DOES,

G.R. No. 202666 September 29, 2014

The right to informational privacy on Facebook

Facts: Nenita Julia V. Daluz (Julia) and Julienne Vida Suzara (Julienne), both minors, were graduating high school students at St. Theresa's College (STC). Julia and Julienne, along with several others, took digital pictures of themselves clad only in their undergarments. These pictures were then uploaded by Angela Lindsay Tan (Angela) on her Facebook profile.

Back at the school a computer teacher at STC’s high school department, learned from her students that some seniors at STC posted pictures online, depicting themselves from the waist up, dressed only in brassieres. What is more, the students claimed that there were times when access to or the availability of the identified students’ photos was not confined to the girls’ Facebook friends,but were, in fact, viewable by any Facebook user.

Following an investigation, STC found the identified students to have deported themselves in a manner proscribed by the school’s Student Handbook. Petitioners filed a Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Habeas Data on the basis of the following considerations:

• The photos of their children in their undergarments (e.g., bra) were taken for posterity before they changed into their swimsuits on the occasion of a birthday beach party; 
• The privacy setting of their children’s Facebook accounts was set at "Friends Only." They, thus, have a reasonable expectation of privacy which must be respected. 
• Respondents, being involved in the field of education, knew or ought to have known of laws that safeguard the right to privacy. Corollarily, respondents knew or ought to have known that the girls, whose privacy has been invaded, are the victims in this case, and not the offenders. Worse, after viewing the photos, the minors were called "immoral" and were punished outright; 
• The photos accessed belong to the girls and, thus, cannot be used and reproduced without their consent. 
• The intrusion into the Facebook accounts, as well as the copying of information, data, and digital images happened at STC’s Computer Laboratory; and 
• All the data and digital images that were extracted were boldly broadcasted by respondents through their memorandum. 

The RTC rendered a Decision dismissing the petition for habeas data. To the trial court, 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. Moreover, the court a quoheld that the photos, having been uploaded on Facebook without restrictions as to who may view them, lost their privacy in some way. 

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

Held: No. As applied, even assuming that the photos in issue are visible only to the sanctioned students’ Facebook friends, respondent STC can hardly be taken to task for the perceived privacy invasion since it was the minors’ Facebook friends who showed the pictures to STC. Respondents were mere recipients of what were posted. They did not resort to any unlawful means of gathering the information as it was voluntarily given to them by persons who had legitimate access to the said posts. Clearly, the fault, if any, lies with the friends of the minors. Curiously enough, however, neither the minors nor their parents imputed any violation of privacy against the students who showed the images to teacher.

However, the records are bereft of any evidence, other than bare assertions that they utilized Facebook’s privacy settings to make the photos visible only to them or to a select few. Without proof that they placed the photographs subject of this case within the ambit of their protected zone of privacy, they cannot now insist that they have an expectation of privacy with respect to the photographs in question.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated July 27, 2012 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 14 in Cebu City in SP. Proc. No. 19251-CEB is hereby AFFIRMED.