WRIT OF HABEAS DATA_SUPREME COURT DECISION _G.R. No. 184769_October 5, 2010

EN BANC MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, ALEXANDER S. DEYTO and RUBEN A. SAPITULA, Petitioners, versus ROSARIO GOPEZ LIM, Respondent. G.R. No. 184769 Present: CORONA, C.J., CARPIO, CARPIO MORALES, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BRION,* PERALTA, BERSAMIN, DEL CASTILLO, ABAD, VILLARAMA, JR., PEREZ, MENDOZA, and SERENO, JJ. Promulgated: October 5, 2010 x - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x D E C I S I O N CARPIO MORALES, J.: The Court is once again confronted with an opportunity to define the evolving metes and bounds of the writ of habeas data. May an employee invoke the remedies available under such writ where an employer decides to transfer her workplace on the basis of copies of an anonymous letter posted therein ─ imputing to her disloyalty to the company and calling for her to leave, which imputation it investigated but fails to inform her of the details thereof? Rosario G. Lim (respondent), also known as Cherry Lim, is an administrative clerk at the Manila Electric Company (MERALCO). On June 4, 2008, an anonymous letter was posted at the door of the Metering Office of the Administration building of MERALCO Plaridel, Bulacan Sector, at which respondent is assigned, denouncing respondent. The letter reads: 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.[1] Copies of the letter were also inserted in the lockers of MERALCO linesmen. Informed about it, respondent reported the matter on June 5, 2008 to the Plaridel Station of the Philippine National Police.[2] By Memorandum[3] dated July 4, 2008, petitioner Alexander Deyto, Head of MERALCOs Human Resource Staffing, directed the transfer of respondent to MERALCOs Alabang Sector in Muntinlupa as A/F OTMS Clerk, effective July 18, 2008 in light of the receipt of reports that there were accusations and threats directed against [her] from unknown individuals and which could possibly compromise [her] safety and security. Respondent, by letter of July 10, 2008 addressed to petitioner Ruben A. Sapitula, Vice-President and Head of MERALCOs Human Resource Administration, appealed her transfer and requested for a dialogue so she could voice her concerns and misgivings on the matter, claiming that the punitive nature of the transfer amounted to a denial of due process. Citing the grueling travel from her residence in Pampanga to Alabang and back entails, and violation of the provisions on job security of their Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), respondent expressed her thoughts on the alleged threats to her security in this wise: x x x x I feel that it would have been better . . . if you could have intimated to me the nature of the alleged accusations and threats so that at least I could have found out if these are credible or even serious. But as you stated, these came from unknown individuals and the way they were handled, it appears that the veracity of these accusations and threats to be [sic] highly suspicious, doubtful or are just mere jokes if they existed at all. Assuming for the sake of argument only, that the alleged threats exist as the management apparently believe, then my transfer to an unfamiliar place and environment which will make me a sitting duck so to speak, seems to betray the real intent of management which is contrary to its expressed concern on my security and safety . . . Thus, it made me think twice on the rationale for managements initiated transfer. Reflecting further, it appears to me that instead of the management supposedly extending favor to me, the net result and effect of management action would be a punitive one.[4] (emphasis and underscoring supplied) Respondent thus requested for the deferment of the implementation of her transfer pending resolution of the issues she raised. No response to her request having been received, respondent filed a petition[5] for the issuance of a writ of habeas data against petitioners before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bulacan, docketed as SP. Proc. No. 213-M-2008. By respondents allegation, petitioners unlawful act and omission consisting of their continued failure and refusal to provide her with details or information about the alleged report which MERALCO purportedly received concerning threats to her safety and security amount to a violation of her right to privacy in life, liberty and security, correctible by habeas data. Respondent thus prayed for the issuance of a writ commanding petitioners to file a written return containing the following: a) a full disclosure of the data or information about respondent in relation to the report purportedly received by petitioners on the alleged threat to her safety and security; the nature of such data and the purpose for its collection; b) the measures taken by petitioners to ensure the confidentiality of such data or information; and c) the currency and accuracy of such data or information obtained. Additionally, respondent prayed for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) enjoining petitioners from effecting her transfer to the MERALCO Alabang Sector. By Order[6] of August 29, 2008, Branch 7 of the Bulacan RTC directed petitioners to file their verified written return. And by Order of September 5, 2008, the trial court granted respondents application for a TRO. Petitioners moved for the dismissal of the petition and recall of the TRO on the grounds that, inter alia, resort to a petition for writ of habeas data was not in order; and the RTC lacked jurisdiction over the case which properly belongs to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).[7] By Decision[8] of September 22, 2008, the trial court granted the prayers of respondent including the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction directing petitioners to desist from implementing respondents transfer until such time that petitioners comply with the disclosures required. The trial court justified its ruling by declaring that, inter alia, recourse to a writ of habeas data should extend not only to victims of extra-legal killings and political activists but also to ordinary citizens, like respondent whose rights to life and security are jeopardized by petitioners refusal to provide her with information or data on the reported threats to her person. Hence, the present petition for review under Rule 45 of 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data[9] contending that 1) the RTC lacked jurisdiction over the case and cannot restrain MERALCOs prerogative as employer to transfer the place of work of its employees, and 2) the issuance of the writ is outside the parameters expressly set forth in the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data.[10] Maintaining that the RTC has no jurisdiction over what they contend is clearly a labor dispute, petitioners argue that although ingeniously crafted as a petition for habeas data, respondent is essentially questioning the transfer of her place of work by her employer[11] and the terms and conditions of her employment which arise from an employer-employee relationship over which the NLRC and the Labor Arbiters under Article 217 of the Labor Code have jurisdiction. Petitioners thus maintain that the RTC had no authority to restrain the implementation of the Memorandum transferring respondents place of work which is purely a management prerogative, and that OCA-Circular No. 79-2003[12] expressly prohibits the issuance of TROs or injunctive writs in labor-related cases. Petitioners go on to point out that the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data directs the issuance of the writ only against public officials or employees, or private individuals or entities engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data or information regarding an aggrieved partys person, family or home; and that MERALCO (or its officers) is clearly not engaged in such activities. The petition is impressed with merit. Respondents plea that she be spared from complying with MERALCOs Memorandum directing her reassignment to the Alabang Sector, under the guise of a quest for information or data allegedly in possession of petitioners, does not fall within the province of a writ of habeas data. Section 1 of the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data provides: 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 information regarding the person, family, home and correspondence of the aggrieved party. (emphasis and underscoring supplied) The habeas data rule, in general, is designed to protect by means of judicial complaint the image, privacy, honor, information, and freedom of information of an individual. It is meant 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. It bears reiteration that like the writ of amparo, habeas data was conceived as a response, given the lack of effective and available remedies, to address the extraordinary rise in the number of killings and enforced disappearances. Its intent is to address violations of or threats to the rights to life, liberty or security as a remedy independently from those provided under prevailing Rules.[13] Castillo v. Cruz[14] underscores the emphasis laid down in Tapuz v. del Rosario[15] 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.[16] Employment constitutes a property right under the context of the due process clause of the Constitution.[17] It is evident that respondents reservations on the real reasons for her transfer - a 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. Respondent in fact trivializes these threats and accusations from unknown individuals in her earlier-quoted portion of her July 10, 2008 letter as highly suspicious, doubtful or are just mere jokes if they existed at all.[18] And she even suspects that her transfer to another place of work betray[s] the real intent of management] and could be a punitive move. Her posture unwittingly concedes that the issue is labor-related. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed September 22, 2008 Decision of the Bulacan RTC, Branch 7 in SP. Proc. No. 213-M-2008 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. SP. Proc. No. 213-M-2008 is, accordingly, DISMISSED. No costs. SO ORDERED. CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice WE CONCUR: RENATO C. CORONA Chief Justice ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice (ON OFFICIAL LEAVE) ARTURO D. BRION Associate Justice TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Associate Justice LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice ROBERTO A. ABAD Associate Justice MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO Associate Justice MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ Associate Justice JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA Associate Justice MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO Associate Justice CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I hereby certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court. RENATO C. CORONA Chief Justice * On Official Leave. [1] Id. at 28. [2] Id. at 30. [3] Captioned Management Initiated Transfer, id. at 33. [4] Id. at 40. [5] Id. at 34-38. [6] Id. at 43-44. [7] Vide Omnibus Motion, id. at 60. [8] Rendered by Judge Danilo Manalastas; rollo, pp. 20-27. [9] A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC which took effect on February 2, 2008. [10] Rollo, pp. 7-8. [11] Id. at 9. [12] REMINDING JUDGES TO EXERCISE UTMOST CAUTION, PRUDENCE AND JUDICIOUSNESS IN ISSUANCE OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDERS AND WRITS OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONS, promulgated on June 12, 2003. [13] Tapuz v. Del Rosario, G. R. No. 182484, June 17, 2008, 554 SCRA 768, 784. [14] G.R. No. 182165, November 25, 2009, 605 SCRA 628, 635. [15] Tapuz v. Del Rosario, supra. [16] Castillo v. Cruz, supra. [17] Romagos v. Metro Cebu Water District, G. R. No. 156100, September 12, 2007, 533 SCRA 50, 60 citing National Power Corporation v. Zozobrado, G. R. No. 153022, April 10, 2006, 487 SCRA 16, 24. [18] Vide note 4.

84TH PERSUASIVE APPEAL_7NOV16_TO THE SCP JUSTICES : QUEST FOR HONOR DIGNITY AND REPUTATION

LIVE NOW: De Lima holds Press Conference - November 7, 2016

Started streaming 12 minutes ago Leila De Lima files a petition for writ of habeas data versus President Rodrigo Duterte before Supreme Court. Watch the latest news and updates here in ABS-CBN News Livestream.

This Entire Roof Is Actually A Solar Panel

DUTERTE :Integrated Bar of the Philippines’ (IBP) Regional Convention (Speech) 11/4/2016

Published on Nov 4, 2016 Manila Hotel November 4, 2016

83RD PERSUASIVE APPEAL_4NOV16_TO THE SCP JUSTICES : FORMIDABLE STRENGTH IN CHARACTER

3NOV16_161ST TIME_CONTINUING DAILY FOLLOW UP OF SET OF FOLLOW UP E-MAILS DATED MARCH 15, 2015

COUNT 161 RENEWAL IN RE A.C. NUMBER 10084 _ ATTY RAUL QUIROZ  DISBARMENT CASE “It is a fair characterization of the lawyer’s responsibility in our society that he stands “as a shield,” …, in defense of right and to ward off wrong. From a profession charged with such responsibilities there must be exacted those qualities of truth-speaking, of a high sense of honor, of granite discretion, of the strictest observance of fiduciary responsibility, that have, throughout the centuries, been compendiously described as “moral character”.”  Schware v. Board  of Examiners, 353 U.S. 238, 239. By swearing the lawyer's oath, an attorney becomes a guardian of truth and the rule of law, and an indispensable instrument in the fair and impartial administration of justice,  a vital function of democracy, a failure of which is disastrous to society. While the duty to uphold the constitution and obey the laws is an obligation imposed upon every citizen, a lawyer assumes responsibilities over and beyond the basic requirements of good citizenship. As servant of the law, a lawyer ought to make himself an example for others to emulate. He should be possessed of and must continue to possess good moral character. EXCERPTED FROM The Lawyer's Oath The Oath: The Lawyer's Ideal                               By J. Jose L. Sabio,        5TH TIME-15MAR16-QUIROZ MISLED THE COURT BY PRESENTING AN ILLEGITIMATE QUITCLAIM DOCUMENT  Atty. Quiroz presented the document "Annex 5" shown above  as a valid quitclaim document though that piece of document was not verified.        5TH TIME_15MAR16_ATTY. QUIROZ DECEITFUL ALIBI ON WHY ANNEX 5 WAS NOT VERIFIED In his effort to achieve legitimacy of the illegitimate "Annex 5" quitclaim document, Atty Quiroz concocted a fraudulent alibi on his sworn statement that Annex 5 was not verified because according to him,  when Ms. Eva Rojas, the remunerations supervisor,  asked me my residence certificate, I told Ms. Rojas that I do not have it with me and I will return to give it to her for verification purposes.  That was a lie, deceitful statement of fact because if it was true that Ms. Rojas asked me my residence certificate for Annex 5 verification purposes, why when we met again on October 23, 2003, when I got my PRB (performance related bonus, Annex J), she did not ask for my residence certificate for verification. Let it be known that both Annex 5 and Annex J are not verified. Hence, Atty. Quiroz is again proven to be lying, he should be disbarred. 7TH TIME_15MAR16_PROOF OF ATTY. RAUL QUIROZ LYING BY VIRTUE OF HIS OWN PRESENTED EVIDENCE  As Atty. Quiroz wanted to prove his allegations of financial difficulties that led to the closure of the old plant he swore that in fact the closed plant was undergoing demolition. He even bragged  about the contractor who will be doing the demolition.   However, the demolition of the old plant demolished his credibility and sent him more toward disbarment.  Why ?  Because he is proven to be lying again, that Shell is undergoing financial difficulties due to the fact that the demolition costs Shell an incredible sum of   PHP 129,950,000.00 as per his own presented documentary evidence.  Is this the manner of a company undergoing financial difficulties,  to spend PHP 129,950,000.00 for demolition work alone at the same time of having financial problems. Again, Atty. Quiroz is obviously lying,  hence, he should be disbarred.                                                                      7th TIME_15MAR16_QUIROZ'S LYING BY VIRTUE OFTHE FALSITY OF HIS OWN SWORN STATEMENT OIL Deregulation Law  as yoke to the shoulders of oil companies doing business in the Philippines is a blatant lie.  The fact is this law shielded oil companies from loses if ever there might be. As we can see, for every change in the cost petroleum products they can automatically adjust the price of their products to a point that is profitable for them.. Atty. Quiroz sworn statement that due to the Oil Deregulation Law it makes it harder for Shell to do business that made Shell decide to close an old plant is deceitful lie.  Oil Deregulation Law is not a yoke but an oxen oil companies can ride on, contrary to Atty. Quiroz sworn statements.                                                                                                                                                8TH TIME_15MAR16_BITUMEN PLANT_ATTY.                  QUIROZ'S DECEITFUL INTENT TO CHEAT      Atty. Raul Quiroz act of calling the BITUMEN PLANT as a "commercial business unit " and differentiating it from the "refinery  business unit" carries with the deceitful intent to cheat.  By exalting that difference he might be able to justify to terminate operators from Process 2 then hire new operators.  But the truth is  the "refinery business unit" is the same as the "commercial business unit".  Both are plants ran and maintained by operators. Both have pipelines, motors, pumps to start and stop, valves to open or close.  Both have raw materials and finished products and storage tanks and control room. The BITUMEN PLANT is just similar to the LPG Terminal (Shell Gas Eastern Inc.) that we ourselves are operating.  In SGEI instead of bitumen, we receive liquified petroleum gas (lpg) in bulk quantities from abroad and the refinery and distribute it to different destinations in the Philippines and Asia. It is not that he called it "commercial business unit" it would be run by employees wearing tuxedos but with operators wearing safety suits.  Clearly, Atty. Quiroz having sworn  that" refinery business unit"  is  different from  "commercial business unit" carries with that assertion his intention to cheat purposely to justify termiinating emplloyess from the old plant and hiring new employees for the BITUMEN plant.   9TH TIME_ 15MAR16_THERE WAS NO REDUNDANCY_DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 2    It is a fact that Shell closed an old plant and terminated employees.  Likewise, opened a new plant BITUMEN IMPORT FACILITY and hire new employees.  19TH TIME_ 15MAR16_THERE WAS NO REDUNDANCY_DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 1  It is not true  that there existed redundancy of positions when I was terminated from employment. 19th TIME_15MAR16_IN VIEW OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS This phrase "in view of the requirements of the business" was intentionally omitted from the sentence from where it is supposed to be included.  tthis phrase having been taken out from the sentence by Atty. Quiroz's defense lawyers avoided showing that there was actually " no redundancy" at the time when i was terminated from employment. 5TH TIME_ 15MAR16_RANKING WAS RIGGED_CIRCUMSTANTIAL  DOCUMENTARYEVIDENCE This document is PRB(performance related bonus) paid to me about 8 months after I was terminated from employment, a circumstantial  evidence that the Ranking which showed that I was second from the poorest work performer was rigged and untrue as Atty. Quiroz deceitfully promoted. 21ST TIME_14MAR16_RANKING WAS RIGGED _IN RE A.C NUMBER 10064  ATTY. RAUL QUIROZ DISBARMENT CASE  The Ranking from where the result of which serve as the basis on who is to be terminated was rigged. It was rigged due to the fact that the list of employees to be terminated was already prepared and submitted to DOLE (Department of Labor and Employment before the Ranking exercise was conducted.. This is the most vicious lie that Atty. Raul Quiroz is guilty of.  He must be disbarred. I was illegally terminated from employment on account of Atty. Quiroz promotion of Shell's wrongdoing.  I should have been  reinstated back to my work until my retirement. COMPLAINT REMINDER_15MAR16_REPUBLIC ACT 7641 CIRCUMVENTED BY SHELL ...PROMOTER GUARDIANS OF LAW SHOULD BE DISCIPLINED RA 7641  THE RETIREMENT PAY LAW was circumvented by Shell as promoted by Atty. Raul Quiroz et al.  This is unlawful. Therefore, promoters guardian of law disciplined administratively and/or criminally prosecuted. ATTY. THEODORE TE_15MAR16_CONTINUING PERSUASIVE APPEALS FILED This is the set of 14 persuasive appeals filed. Last update 11 April 2016 17TH TIME_15MAR16_TWELFTH PERSUASIVE APPEAL_SERENO LECTURES ARTICLE XI SECTION 1 OF THE PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION This is the twelfth persuasive  where the Honorable Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno lectures the Philippine Constitution Article XI Section 1. ATTY. THEODORE TE_15MAR16_ E-MAIL RESPONSE MODEL FROM THE PHILIPPINE SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM Shown above is an e-mail response model from the Social Security System.  This is the e-mail response which is most recommended to the Supreme Court of the Philippines Public Information Office.  Atty. Theodore Te please be guided by this model. ATTY THEODORE TE_15MAR16_9TH COUNT _PERSUASIVE APPEAL _ MALFEASANCE AND MISFEASANCE IN OFFICE This is one among the set of 12 persuasive appeals which Atty. Theodore Te et al refused to take cognizance of. ATTY THEODORE TE:_15MAR16_PERSUASIVE REMINDER_8TH COUNT PEOPLE IN GOVERNMENT E-MAIL RESPONSE MODEL  FROM THE USA Public Information Office as signature to your e-mails denies the constitutional concept of accountability.  Instead, please sign your name with great pride, honor and dignity.and not just PIO, the runaway, hiding  and no face guy. SUPREME COURT_15MAR16 _89th FOLLOW UP_E-MAIL ADDRESS INQUIRY PERSONNEL NAME AND POSITION The righteousness of the blameless will direct his way aright, but the wicked will fall by his own wickedness....Proverbs Chapter11 v.5 LAPITAN_15MAR16_67th FOLLOW UP_ OBJECTION ON THE MATTER OF SENDING NOTICE BY THE THIRD DIVISION OF THE SUPREME COURT When pride comes, then comes shame;  but with humble is wisdom....Proverbs chapter 11 v. 2 GEUS_15MAR16_66th FOLLOW UP_REITERATION OF DEMAND  PAYMENT OF RETIREMENT PAY Dishonest scales are an abomination to the Lord, but a just weight is His delight... Proverbs Chapter 11  v. 1 Retirement Pay Law circumvented by Shell subject to penal provision provided for by Article 288 of the Labor Code of the Philippines. THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE.