THE Supreme Court (SC) reminded users of social-networking sites to be cautious of the risks in engaging in cyberspace activities, as it denied the petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas data filed by the parents of two students of Saint Theresa’s College (STC) who were barred from attending their high-school graduation rites in March 2012.
In an 18-page ruling penned by Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco Jr., the SC’s Third Division held that the trial court did not err when it decided that the STC and its computer teacher Mylene Rheza Escudero did not violate the right to privacy of the sanctioned students when the school used their Facebook photos as basis in taking action against them.
The STC officials described the photos as “lewd, obscene and immoral.”
The SC did not give credence to the claim of the petitioners—
Rhonda Ave Vinares and spouses Margarita and David Suzara—that the Facebook accounts of their children were set on “very private” or “friends only” settings and are safeguarded with password.
Thus, they said, the students
have a reasonable expectation that their privacy will be respected.
Of the five girls that were barred from attending the graduation rites of STC on March 30, 2012, four decided to pursue the case before the court. However, two eventually withdrew their lawsuits after reaching an amicable settlement with STC officials.
In their writ of habeas data
petition, the parents asked the court to surrender the photos of the students, which STC officials “illegally” downloaded from the students’ Facebook account. They insisted that Escudero violated their children’s right to privacy when she accessed their Facebook accounts, downloaded copies of the pictures and showed the photos to school administrators.
They noted that the action was a breach of the minors’ privacy since their Facebook accounts were under very private or only friends setting safeguarded with a password.
They added that their children’s disclosure was only limited since their profiles were not open to public viewing, thus, people who are not their Facebook friends, including the respondents, are barred from accessing the post without their knowledge and consent.
They also asked the school to identify all persons who saw the photos and to identify the persons in actual possession and control of the photos.
A writ of habeas data is a legal remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in life, liberty or security is violated.
It grants the petitioner a chance to question the data and to seek its “updating, rectification, or destruction.”
But the SC held that the petitioners failed to present evidence to prove their children’s right to privacy was violated by the respondents.
“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,” the SC ruled.
It gave more weight to the testimony of Escudero, who claimed it was her students who showed her the pictures of the girls clad in brassieres, smoking inside a bar and drinking hard liquor.
Escudero further claimed that these students logged on their Facebook accounts and accessed from there the various photographs of the subject students.
“In this regard, we cannot give much weight to the minors’ testimonies for one key reason: failure to question the students’ act of showing the photos to [Kristine Rose] Tigol, [STC’s discipline-in-charge] disproves their allegation that the photos were viewable only by the five of them,” the SC explained.
“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 Escudero.
The Court also ruled that even if the photos are viewable by “friends only,” such setting does not assure absolute privacy.
The SC said the digital images under the setting “remain to be outside the confines of the zones of privacy” since “a good number of Facebook users ‘befriend’ other users who are total stranger and a user’s Facebook account can share the former’s post or tag to others who are not their Facebook friends with the former, despite its being visible only to his or her own Facebook friends.”
“Also, when the post is shared or when a person is tagged, the respective Facebook friends of the person who shared the post or who was tagged can view the post, the privacy setting of which was set at ‘friends,’” the SC ruled.
In resolving the case, the Court reminded social-networking users to be cautious and aware of the risks that they expose themselves to whenever they engage in cyberspace activities.
“Furthermore, and more important, information, otherwise private, voluntarily surrendered by them can be opened, read, or copied by third parties who may or may not be allowed access to such,” the SC said.
Concurring with the ruling were Associate Justices Associate Justices Diosdado Peralta, Martin Villarama Jr., Bienvenido Reyes and Francis Jardeleza.