Title
Vivares vs. St. Theresa's College
Case
G.R. No. 202666
Decision Date
Sep 29, 2014
Minors' Facebook photos, shared with "Friends Only" privacy, accessed by school for disciplinary action. Supreme Court ruled no privacy violation, upholding school's authority to enforce policies.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 202666)

Key Dates

January 2012 – Minors take undergarment photos at a beach party and upload to Facebook.
March 1, 2012 – STC disciplines involved students by barring them from graduation.
March 23–28, 2012 – Petition for injunction filed; RTC issues TRO and STC defies it.
March 2012 – Petition for writ of habeas data filed before RTC (SP. Proc. No. 19251-CEB).
July 5, 2012 – RTC issues writ of habeas data.
July 27, 2012 – RTC dismisses petition.
September 29, 2014 – Supreme Court decision affirming dismissal.

Applicable Law

1987 Constitution – Right to privacy under Article III, Section 3.
Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data (A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC):
• Section 1 – Availability of writ against unlawful acts collecting or storing personal data.
• Section 2 – Any aggrieved party may file; not limited to extralegal killings or disappearances.
Rules of Court, Rule 45 – Petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court.

Factual Background

Minor students Julia and Julienne Suzara, graduating from STC, along with Angela Tan and others, photographed themselves in undergarments before a party. Angela uploaded these images to Facebook. Escudero learned of them, asked her students—who were Facebook friends of the minors—to log into their accounts on school computers, accessed and saved the photos, then showed them to STC officials. STC found the students violated its handbook and barred them from graduation.

Procedural History

Angela’s mother filed an injunction (Civil Case No. CEB-38594) to allow her daughter to graduate. STC obtained a TRO but refused compliance, citing pending reconsideration. Petitioners then filed for a writ of habeas data. RTC issued the writ, respondents returned, and the court dismissed the petition for failure to prove an actual or threatened privacy violation and on the ground that Facebook posts are not private if not adequately restricted.

Issues

  1. Whether petitioners properly invoked the writ of habeas data.
  2. Whether the minors had a reasonable expectation of privacy in their Facebook photos.

Writ Availability and Scope

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that under the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data, any person aggrieved by violation or threat to privacy in life, liberty, or security may seek the writ against public or private entities engaged in gathering, collecting, or storing personal data. The writ is not confined to extralegal killings or disappearances and applies regardless of whether data-gathering is a business activity.

Right to Informational Privacy in OSNs

Informational privacy is the right to control personal data. Online Social Networks (OSNs) like Facebook operate to share information but offer privacy settings (Public, Friends of Friends, Friends, Custom, Only Me) enabling users to manifest intent to limit disclosure. A reasonable expectation of privacy arises when users employ such tools.

Analysis of Facebook Privacy Settings

Facebook’s privacy tools allow users to restrict access. A genuine zone of privacy requires affirmative use of settings that effectively limit visibility (e.g., Only Me or a narrowly defined Custom audience). Merely relying on “Friends Only” is insufficient because friends may share or tag third parties, expanding audience beyond the user’s control.

Application to the Case

• Petitioners failed to prove that the minors sel


...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.