8/28/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

G.R. No. 184769. October 5, 2010.*

MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, ALEXANDER S. DEYTO and RUBEN A. SAPITULA,

petitioners, vs.ROSARIO GOPEZ LIM, respondent.

Writ of Habeas Data; Right to Privacy; Labor Law; Transfers; An employee’s plea that she be spared from
complying with her employer’s Memorandum directing her reassignment 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; 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 one’s right to the truth and to informational privacy, thus safeguarding the constitutional guarantees
of a person’s right to life, liberty and security against abuse in this age of information technology.—
Respondent’s plea that she be spared from complying with MERALCO’s 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 HabeasData provides: Section 1. Habeas Data.—The writ of habeas datais 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 one’s right to the truth and
to informational privacy, thus safeguarding the constitutional guarantees of a person’s right to life, liberty
and security against abuse in this age of information technology.

* EN BANC.

196

196 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ANNOTATED

Manila Electric Company vs. Lim

Same; Same; Same; 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; 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 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. Castillo v. Cruz, 605 SCRA 628 (2009), underscores the emphasis laid down in Tapuz v. del Rosario,
554 SCRA 768 (2008), 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 respondent’s reservations on the real reasons for her transfer—a legitimate
concern respecting the terms and conditions of one’s 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.
Same; Same; Same; To argue that the employer’s refusal to disclose the contents of reports allegedly
received on the threats to the employee’s safety amounts to a violation of her right to privacy is at best
speculative.—In another vein, there is no showing from the facts presented that petitioners committed any
unjustifiable or unlawful violation of respondent’s  right to privacy  vis-à-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 respondent’s 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

197

VOL. 632, OCTOBER 5, 2010 197

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174349d1a2dee317836003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/5
8/28/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

Manila Electric Company vs. Lim

if they existed at all.” 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.

PETITION for the Issuance of a Writ of Habeas Data.

   The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
  Horacio Enrico M. Bona, Teresita M. Magpayo, Elias M. Santos, Lynnette Deloria-
Manarang for petitioners.
  Romerico S. Espera for respondent.

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.
198

198 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Manila Electric Company vs. Lim

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 Memorandum3  dated July 4, 2008, petitioner Alexander Deyto, Head of MERALCO’s
Human Resource Staffing, directed the transfer of respondent to MERALCO’s 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 MERALCO’s 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

_______________

1 Id., at p. 28.
2 Id., at p. 30
3 Captioned “Management Initiated Transfer,” id., at p. 33.

199

VOL. 632, OCTOBER 5, 2010 199

Manila Electric Company vs. Lim

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174349d1a2dee317836003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/5
8/28/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

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 management’s 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 petition5 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 respondent’s 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;

_______________

4 Id., at p. 40.
5 Id., at pp. 34-38.

200

200 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Manila Electric Company vs. Lim

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 Order6 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 respondent’s
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 Decision8  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 respondent’s 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

_______________

6 Id., at pp. 43-44.

7 Vide Omnibus Motion, id., at p. 60.
8 Rendered by Judge Danilo Manalastas; Rollo, pp. 20-27.

201

VOL. 632, OCTOBER 5, 2010 201

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174349d1a2dee317836003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/5
8/28/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

Manila Electric Company vs. Lim

Habeas Data9 contending that 1) the RTC lacked jurisdiction over the case and cannot restrain
MERALCO’s 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 respondent’s place of work which is purely a management
prerogative, and that OCA-Circular No. 79-200312  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 party’s person,
family or home; and that MERALCO (or its officers) is clearly not engaged in such activities.
The petition is impressed with merit.

_______________

9  A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC which took effect on February 2, 2008.

10 Rollo, pp. 7-8.
11 Id., at p. 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.

202

202 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Manila Electric Company vs. Lim

Respondent’s plea that she be spared from complying with MERALCO’s 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 Dataprovides:
“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 one’s right to the truth and to informational privacy, thus
safeguarding the constitutional guarantees of a person’s 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. Cruz14 underscores the emphasis laid down in Tapuz v. del Rosario15 that the writs
of amparo and habeas data will NOT issue to protect purely property or commercial

_______________

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.

203

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174349d1a2dee317836003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/5
8/28/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

VOL. 632, OCTOBER 5, 2010 203

Manila Electric Company vs. Lim

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 respondent’s reservations on the real reasons for her
transfer—a legitimate concern respecting the terms and conditions of one’s 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 respondent’s  right to privacy  vis-à-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 respondent’s 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. 

_______________

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.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174349d1a2dee317836003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/5