THE RULE ON THE WRIT OF HABEAS DATA

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.
SEC. 2. Who May File. - Any aggrieved party may file a petition for the
writ of habeas data. However, in cases of extralegal killings and enforced
disappearances, the petition may be filed by:
(a) Any member of the immediate family of the aggrieved party, namely:
the spouse, children and parents; or
(b) Any ascendant, descendant or collateral relative of the aggrieved party
within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity, in default of those
mentioned in the preceding paragraph; or
SEC. 3. Where to File. - The petition may be filed with the Regional Trial
Court where the petitioner or respondent resides, or that which has
jurisdiction over the place where the data or information is gathered,
collected or stored, at the option of the petitioner.
The petition may also be filed with the Supreme Court or the Court of
Appeals or the Sandiganbayan when the action concerns public data files
of government offices.
SEC. 4. Where Returnable; Enforceable. - When the writ is issued by a
Regional Trial Court or any judge thereof, it shall be returnable before such
court or judge.
When issued by the Court of Appeals or the Sandiganbayan or any of its
justices, it may be returnable before such court or any justice thereof, or to
any Regional Trial Court of the place where the petitioner or respondent
resides, or that which has jurisdiction over the place where the data or
information is gathered, collected or stored.
When issued by the Supreme Court or any of its justices, it may be
returnable before such Court or any justice thereof, or before the Court of
Appeals or the Sandiganbayan or any of its justices, or to any Regional Trial
Court of the place where the petitioner or respondent resides, or that which

has jurisdiction over the place where the data or information is gathered,
collected or stored.
The writ of habeas data shall be enforceable anywhere in the Philippines.
Sec. 5. Docket Fees. - No docket and other lawful fees shall be required
from an indigent petitioner. The petition of the indigent shall be docked
and acted upon immediately, without prejudice to subsequent submission
of proof of indigency not later than fifteen (15) days from the filing of the
petition.
SEC. 6. Petition. - A verified written petition for a writ of habeas
data should contain:
(a) The personal circumstances of the petitioner and the respondent;
(b) The manner the right to privacy is violated or threatened and how it
affects the right to life, liberty or security of the aggrieved party;
(c) The actions and recourses taken by the petitioner to secure the data or
information;
(d) The location of the files, registers or databases, the government office,
and the person in charge, in possession or in control of the data or
information, if known;
(e) The reliefs prayed for, which may include the updating, rectification,
suppression or destruction of the database or information or files kept by
the respondent.
In case of threats, the relief may include a prayer for an order enjoining
the act complained of; and
(f) Such other relevant reliefs as are just and equitable.
SEC. 7. Issuance of the Writ. - Upon the filing of the petition, the court,
justice or judge shall immediately order the issuance of the writ if on its
face it ought to issue. The clerk of court shall issue the writ under the seal
of the court and cause it to be served within three (3) days from the
issuance; or, in case of urgent necessity, the justice or judge may issue the
writ under his or her own hand, and may deputize any officer or person
serve it.

The writ shall also set the date and time for summary hearing of the
petition which shall not be later than ten (10) work days from the date of
its issuance.
SEC. 8. Penalty for Refusing to Issue or Serve the Writ. - A clerk of
court who refuses to issue the writ after its allowance, or a deputized
person who refuses to serve the same, shall be punished by the court,
justice or judge for contempt without prejudice to other disciplinary
actions.
SEC. 9. How the Writ is Served. - The writ shall be served upon the
respondent by a judicial officer or by a person deputized by the court,
justice or judge who shall retain a copy on which to make a return of
service. In case the writ cannot be served personally on the respondent,
the rules on substituted service shall apply.
SEC. 10. Return; Contents. - The respondent shall file a verified written
return together with supporting affidavits within five (5) working days from
service of the writ, which period may be reasonably extended by the Court
for justifiable reasons. The return shall, among other things, contain the
following:
(a) The lawful defenses such as national security, state secrets, privileged
communications, confidentiality of the source of information of media and
others;
(b) In case of respondent in charge, in possession or in control of the data
or information subject of the petition;
(i) a disclosure of the data or information about the petitioner, the nature
of such data or information, and the purpose for its collection;
(ii) the steps or actions taken by the respondent to ensure the security and
confidentiality of the data or information; and,
(iii) the currency and accuracy of the data or information held; and,
(c) Other allegations relevant to the resolution of the proceeding.
A general denial of the allegations in the petition shall not be allowed.
SEC. 11. Contempt. - The court, justice or judge may punish with
imprisonment or fine a respondent who commits contempt by making a

false return, or refusing to make a return; or any person who otherwise

disobeys or resist a lawful process or order of the court.
SEC. 12. When Defenses May be Heard in Chambers. - A hearing in
chambers may be conducted where the respondent invokes the defense
that the release of the data or information in question shall compromise
national security or state secrets, or when the data or information cannot
be divulged to the public due to its nature or privileged character.
Sec. 13. Prohibited Pleadings and Motions. - The following pleadings and
motions are prohibited:
(a) Motion to dismiss;
(b) Motion for extension of time to file return, opposition, affidavit, position
paper and other pleadings;
(c) Dilatory motion for postponement;
(d) Motion for a bill of particulars;
(e) Counterclaim or cross-claim;
(f) Third-party complaint;
(g) Reply;
(h) Motion to declare respondent in default;
(i) Intervention;
(j) Memorandum;
(k) Motion for reconsideration of interlocutory orders or interim relief
orders; and
(l) Petition for certiorari, mandamus or prohibition against any interlocutory
order.

SEC. 14. Return; Filing. - In case the respondent fails to file a return, the
court, justice or judge shall proceed to hear the petition ex parte, granting
the petitioner such relief as the petition may warrant unless the court in its
discretion requires the petitioner to submit evidence.
SEC. 15. Summary Hearing. - The hearing on the petition shall be
summary. However, the court, justice or judge may call for a preliminary
conference to simplify the issues and determine the possibility of obtaining
stipulations and admissions from the parties.
SEC. 16. Judgment. - The court shall render judgment within ten (10)
days from the time the petition is submitted for decision. If the allegations
in the petition are proven by substantial evidence, the court shall enjoin
the act complained of, or order the deletion, destruction, or rectification of
the erroneous data or information and grant other relevant reliefs as may
be just and equitable; otherwise, the privilege of the writ shall be denied.
Upon its finality, the judgment shall be enforced by the sheriff or any lawful
officers as may be designated by the court, justice or judge within five (5)
working days.
SEC. 17. Return of Service. - The officer who executed the final
judgment shall, within three (3) days from its enforcement, make a verified
return to the court. The return shall contain a full statement of the
proceedings under the writ and a complete inventory of the database or
information, or documents and articles inspected, updated, rectified, or
deleted, with copies served on the petitioner and the respondent.
The officer shall state in the return how the judgment was enforced and
complied with by the respondent, as well as all objections of the parties
regarding the manner and regularity of the service of the writ.
SEC. 18. Hearing on Officers Return. - The court shall set the return
for hearing with due notice to the parties and act accordingly.
SEC. 19. Appeal. - Any party may appeal from the final judgment or order
to the Supreme Court under Rule 45. The appeal may raise questions of
fact or law or both.
The period of appeal shall be five (5) working days from the date of notice
of the judgment or final order.

The appeal shall be

corpus and amparo cases.

given

the

same

priority

as

in habeas

SEC. 20. Institution of Separate Actions. - The filing of a petition for

the writ of habeas data shall not preclude the filing of separate criminal,
civil or administrative actions.
SEC. 21. Consolidation. - When a criminal action is filed subsequent to
the filing of a petition for the writ, the latter shall be consolidated with the
criminal action.
When a criminal action and a separate civil action are filed subsequent to a
petition for a writ of habeas data, the petition shall be consolidated with
the criminal action.
After consolidation, the procedure under this Rule shall continue to govern
the disposition of the reliefs in the petition.
SEC. 22. Effect of Filing of a Criminal Action. - When a criminal action
has been commenced, no separate petition for the writ shall be filed. The
relief under the writ shall be available to an aggrieved party by motion in
the criminal case.
The procedure under this Rule shall govern the disposition of the reliefs
available under the writ of habeas data.
SEC. 23. Substantive Rights. - This Rule shall not diminish, increase or
modify substantive rights.
SEC. 24. Suppletory Application of the Rules of Court. - The Rules of
Court shall apply suppletorily insofar as it is not inconsistent with this Rule.
SEC. 25. Effectivity. - This Rule shall take effect on February 2, 2008,
following its publication in three (3) newspapers of general circulation.
[PUBLISHED IN THE MANILA BULLETIN, THE PHILIPPINE STAR AND
THE PHILIPPINE DAILY INQUIRER ON 25 JANUARY 2008]

1.

Regional Trial Court: Petition for issuance of a writ of amparo and

writ of habeas data

2.

Supreme Court: Appeal to the Supreme Court by way of a Petition

for Review on Certiorari pursuant to the Rules on the Writ of Amparo
FACTS:
Spouses Francisco and Amanda Cruz leased a parcel of land located at
Barrio Guinhawa, Malolos, Bulacan from the Provincial Government of
Bulacan. However, the Provincial Government of Bulacan intended to use
the property for projects, thus upon expiry of the lease, it demanded that
the respondents vacate the property. When the respondents refused to
heed its demands, it filed an action for unlawful detainer before the M
unicipal Trial Court (MTC) of Bulacan, Bulacan.
The MTC rendered judgment against the respondents which was affirmed
on appeal by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bulacan. The judgment for
ejectment became final and executory.

Castillo v. Cruz
G.R. No. 182165
25 November 2009
PONENTE: Carpio Morales, J.
PARTIES:
1.

1. PETITIONERS: P/SUPT. FELIXBERTO CASTILLO, POLICE OFFICERS

ROMEO BAGTAS, RUPERTO BORLONGAN, EDMUNDO DIONISIO, RONNIE
MORALES, ARNOLD TRIA, and GILBERTO PUNZALAN, ENGR. RICASOL P.
MILLAN, ENGR. REDENTOR S. DELA CRUZ, MR. ANASTACIO L. BORLONGAN,
MR. ARTEMIO ESGUERRA, TISOY, and JOHN DOES

2.

RESPONDENTS: DR. AMANDA T. CRUZ, NIXON T. CRUZ, and

FERDINAND T. CRUZ
NATURE: Petition for review on certiorari

Despite the said judgment, respondents refused to vacate the property and
filed cases against the Provincial Government of Bulacan and the judges
who presided over the case. Notwithstanding the cases filed by the
respondents, judgment for ejectment was executed on 25 January 2008
pursuant to a Second Alias Writ of Demolition issued by the MTC. However,
the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan acted favorably on an application for a
temporary restraining order (TRO) by the respondents.
Thus, the Spouses Cruz, along with their sonsrespondents Nixon and
Ferdinand, thereupon entered the property, placed several container vans
and purportedly represented themselves as owners of the property which
was for lease.
In response, the Mayor of Malolos sought assistance from the Philippine
National Police who were led by Police Superintendent Felixberto Castillo
and sought to protect, secure and maintain the possession of the
property. The respondents, however, refused to surrender possession
invoking a prior permanent injunction issued by the RTC of Malolos which
they claimed enjoined the Provincial Government of Bulacan from
repossessing the property.
On 03 March 2008, respondents herein filed for a Respectful MotionPetition for Writ of Amparo and Habeas Data alleging that despite the
permanent injunction, petitioners entered the property and arrested the
respondents when they attempted to resist the entry.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND:
The RTC of Malolos granted the petition for amparo and habeas data as the
respondents has sufficiently proven that the petitioners committed acts

subjecting the former to bodily harm, mental torture, degradation, and

the debasement of a human being, reminiscent of the martial law police
brutality, sending chill in any ordinary citizen.
PERTINENT ISSUES:
1.

Whether or not the remedies of amparo and habeas data are

proper in cases involving property disputes without a showing of a
considerable nexus between the acts complained of and its effect on
respondents right to life, liberty and security.

2.

Whether or not the privilege of amparo may still be granted

despite the dismissal of the case for qualified theft against Guisande.
ANSWER:

1.

No

2.

No.
SUPREME COURT RULINGS:

security, the Court will not delve on the propriety of petitioners entry into
the property.
It bears emphasis that respondents petition did not show any actual
violation, imminent or continuing threat to their life, liberty and security.
Bare allegations that petitioners in unison, conspiracy and in contempt of
court, there and then willfully, forcibly and feloniously with the use of force
and intimidation entered and forcibly, physically manhandled the
petitioners
(respondents)
and
arrested
the
herein
petitioners
(respondents) will not suffice to prove entitlement to the remedy of the
writ of amparo. No undue confinement or detention was present. In fact,
respondents were even able to post bail for the offenses a day after thei r
arrest.
Habeas data cannot be invoked when respondents are not
gathering, collecting, or storing data or information Oddly,
respondents also seek the issuance of a writ of habeas data when it is not
even alleged that petitioners are gathering, collecting or storing data or
information regarding their person, family, home and correspondence.
More importantly, respondent Amanda and one of her sons, Francisco Jr.,
likewise filed a petition for writs of amparo and habeas data before the
Sandiganbayan, they alleging the commission of continuing threats by
petitioners after the issuance of the writs by the RTC. Such petition was
correctly dismissed for insufficiency and forum shopping.

PROPRIETY OF THE REMEDY OF AMPARO

The remedy of amparo can only be invoked to protect the right to
life, liberty, and security Under the Rules on the Writ of Amparo and
Habeas Data, the coverage of the writs is limited to the protection of rights
to life, liberty, and security although the writs cover not only actual but
also threats of unlawful acts or omissions. As was held in Secretary of
National Defense v. Manalo, the Amparo Rule was intended to address the
intractable problem of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances,
its coverage, in its present form, is confined to these two instances or to
threats thereof. Extralegal killings are killings committed without due
process of law, i.e., without legal safeguards or judicial proceedings. On
the other hand, enforced disappearances are attended by the following
characteristics: an arrest, detention or abduction of a person by a
government official or organized groups or private individuals acting with
the direct or indirect acquiescence of the government; the refusal of the
State to disclose the fate or whereabouts of the person concerned or a
refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty which places such
persons outside the protection of law.
Thus, to be covered by the privilege of the writs, respondents must meet
the threshold requirement that their right to life, liberty and security is
violated or threatened with an unlawful act or omission. Evidently, the
present controversy arose out of a property dispute between the Provincial
Government and respondents. Absent any considerable nexus between the
acts complained of and its effect on respondents right to life, liberty and

It thus appears that respondents are not without recourse and have in fact
taken full advantage of the legal system with the filing of civil, criminal and
administrative charges.
It need not be underlined that respondents petitions for writs of amparo
and habeas data are extraordinary remedies which cannot be used as tools
to stall the execution of a final and executory decision in a property
dispute.
An independent action for Amparo and Habeas Data is improper once
criminal proceedings have been commenced; must be raised by motion in
the criminal proceedings At all events, respondents filing of the petitions
for writs of amparo and habeas data should have been barred, for criminal
proceedings against them had commenced after they were arrested in
flagrante delicto and proceeded against in accordance with Section 6, Rule
112 of the Rules of Court. Validity of the arrest or the proceedings
conducted thereafter is a defense that may be set up by respondents
during trial and not before a petition for writs of amparo and habeas data.
The reliefs afforded by the writs may, however, be made available to the
aggrieved party by motion in the criminal proceedings.
It bears stressing that nowhere in the transcript of the CA hearing on
December 3, 2009, nor in the Order recited in open court by Justice Pizarro,
is there an affirmation of petitioner Sos claim that the confinement of

accused Guisande at the NCMH was illegal. Neither were the respective
acts performed by respondents Judge Tacla and Dr. Vicente in ascertaining
the mental condition of accused Guisande to withstand trial declared
unlawful. On the contrary, the NCMH, a well-reputed government forensic
facility, albeit not held in high regard by petitioner Sos and accused
Guisandes family, had assessed Guisande fit for trial.

DISPOSITIVE:
The Supreme Court granted the Supreme Court granted the petition for
review on certiorari. Accordingly, the 04 March 2008 Order of the RTC of
Malolos, Bulacan is declared null and void, and its 28 March 2008 Decision
is reversed and set aside. The Supreme Court likewise dismissed Special
Civil Action No. 53-M-2008.

The Rules on the Writs of habeas corpus and amparo are clear; the
act or omission or the threatened act or omission complained of
confinement and custody for habeas corpus and violations of, or threat to
violate, a persons life, liberty, and security for amparo cases should be
illegal or unlawful.
As was held in Rubrico v. Macapagal-Arroyo, the privilege of the writ of
amparo is envisioned basically to protect and guarantee the rights to life,
liberty, and security of persons, free from fears and threats that vitiate the
quality of this life. It is an extraordinary writ conceptualized and adopted in
light of and in response to the prevalence of extra-legal killings and
enforced disappearances. Accordingly, the remedy ought to be resorted to
and granted judiciously, lest the ideal sought by the Amparo Rule be
diluted and undermined by the indiscriminate filing of amparo petitions for
purposes less than the desire to secure amparo reliefs and protection
and/or on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations.
On the other hand, in Ampatuan v. Macaraig, the Court held that the
general purpose of the writ of habeas corpus is to determine whether or
not a particular person is legally held. The essential object and purpose of
the writ of habeas corpus is to inquire into all manner of involuntary
restraint as distinguished from voluntary, and to relieve a person therefrom
if such restraint is illegal. Any restraint which will preclude freedom of
action is sufficient. In passing upon a petition for habeas corpus, a court
or judge must first inquire into whether the petitioner is being restrained of
his liberty. If he is not, the writ will be refused. Inquiry into the cause of
detention will proceed only where such restraint exists. If the alleged cause
is thereafter found to be unlawful, then the writ should be granted and the
petitioner discharged. Needless to state, if otherwise, again the writ will be
refused.
In the cases at bar, the question before the CA was correctly limited to
which hospital, the NCMH or a medical facility of accuseds own choosing,
accused Guisande should be referred for treatment of a supposed mental
condition. In addition, we note that it was procedurally proper for the RTC
to ask the NCMH for a separate opinion on accuseds mental fitness to be
arraigned and stand trial. Be that as it may, the CA allowed the transfer of
accused to St. Clares Medical Center under the custody of Dr. Rene Yat.
Notwithstanding, Guisande remained in custody of the law to answer for
the non-bailable criminal charge against her, and was simply allowed to
pursue medical treatment in the hospital and from a doctor of her choice.

Roxas v. Macapagal-Arroyo
G.R. No. 189155
07 September 2010
PONENTE: Perez, J.
PARTIES:
1.
2.

PETITIONER: MELISSA ROXAS

RESPONDENTS: PRESIDENT
GLORIA
MACAPAGAL-ARROYO,
GILBERT TEODORO, GEN. VICTOR IBRADO, P/DIR. GEN. JESUS AME
VERZOSA, LT. GEN. DELFIN BANGIT, PC/SIPT/ LEON NILO DELA CRUZ,
MAJ.GEN. RALPH VILLANUEVA, PS/SUPT. RUDY GAMIDO LACADIN, DEX, RC,
and ROSE
NATURE: Petition for Review on Certiorari
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND:

1.

Supreme Court: Petition for the issuance of Writs of Amparo and

Habeas Data

2.

Court of Appeals: Upon order of the Supreme Court, the Court of

Appeals summarily heard the Original Action for Petition of Amparo.
Thereafter, the Court of Appeals issued a judgment which is the subject of
the present Petition for Review on Certiorari.

it was not convinced that the respondents were responsible for the
abduction and torture of Roxas.
Aggrieved, Roxas filed an appeal with the Supreme Court.
PERTINENT ISSUES:

FACTS:

1.

Whether or not the doctrine of command responsibility is

applicable in an amparo petition.

Melissa Roxas, an American citizen of Filipino descent, while in the United

States, enrolled in an exposure program to the Philippines with the group
Bagong Alyansang Makabayan-United States of America (BAYAN- USA) of
which she is a member.

2.

Whether or not circumstantial evidence with regard to the identity

and affiliation of the perpetrators is enough ground for the issuance of the
privilege of the writ of amparo.

3.

Whether or not substantial evidence to prove actual or threatened

violation of the right to privacy in life, liberty or security of the victim is
necessary before the privilege of the writ may be extended.

On 19 May 2009, after doing survey work in Tarlac, Roxas and her
companions rested in the house of Mr. Jesus Paolo in Sitio Bagong Sikat.
While Roxas and her companions were resting, 15 heavily armed men in
civilian clothes forcibly entered the house and dragged them inside a van.
When they alighted from the van, she was informed that she is being
detained for being a member of Communist Party of the Philippines-New
Peoples Army (CPP-NPA). She was then separated from her companions
and was brought to a room, from where she could hear sounds of gunfire,
noise of planes taking off and landing, and some construction bustle.

ANSWERS:
1.
2.

She was interrogated and tortured for 5 straight days to convince her to
abandon her communist beliefs. She was informed by a person named
RC that those who tortured her came from the Special Operations
Group and that she was abducted because her name is included in the
Order of Battle.
On 25 May 2009, Roxas was finally released and was given a cellular phone
with a sim card. She was sternly warned not to report the incident to the
group Karapatan or something untoward will happen to her and her family.
After her release, Roxas continued to receive calls from RC thru the cell
phone given to her. Out of apprehension, she threw the phone and the sim
card.
Hence, on 01 June 2009, Roxas filed a petition for the issuance of Writs of
Amparo and Habeas Data before the Supreme Court, impleading the highranking officials of military and Philippine National Police (PNP), on the
belief that it was the government agents who were behind her abduction
and torture.
On 09 June 2009, the Supreme Court issued the writs and referred the case
to the Court of Appeals for hearing, reception of evidence and appropriate
action. The Court of Appeals granted the privilege of writs of amparo and
habeas data. However, the court a quo absolved the respondents because

3.

No.
It depends. Direct evidence of identity, when obtainable must be
preferred over mere circumstantial evidence.
Yes.
SUPREME COURT RULINGS:
1.
DOCTRINE OF COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY AND THE WRIT OF
AMPARO
Command responsibility as justification in impleading respondents
is legally inaccurate The use of the doctrine of command responsibility
as justification in impleading the respondents in her amparo petition, is
legally inaccurate, if not incorrect. Such doctrine is a rule of substantive
law that establishes liability and, by this account, cannot be a proper legal
basis to implead a party-respondent in an amparo petition.
The Writ of Amparo as a protective remedy As held in the case of
Rubrico v. Arroyo, the writ of amparo is a protective remedy aimed at
providing judicial relief consisting of the appropriate remedial measures
and directives that may be crafted by the court, in order to address specific
violations or threats of violation of the constitutional rights to life, liberty or
security. It does not fix liability for such disappearance, killing or threats,
whether that may be criminal, civil or administrative under the applicable
substantive law. Since the application of command responsibility

presupposes an imputation of individual liability, it is more aptly invoked in

a full-blown criminal or administrative case rather than in a summary
amparo proceeding. However, the inapplicability of the doctrine of
command responsibility does not preclude impleading military or police
commanders on the ground that the complained acts in the petition were
committed with their direct or indirect acquiescence. In which case,
commanders may be impleaded not actually on the basis of command
responsibilitybut rather on the ground of their responsibility, or at least
accountability.
2.

2.

Directing the incumbent Chief of the Philippine National Police

(PNP), or his successor, and the incumbent Chief of Staff of the AFP, or his
successor, to extend assistance to the ongoing investigation of the CHR,
including but not limited to furnishing the latter a copy of its personnel
records circa the time of the petitioners abduction and torture, subject to
reasonable regulations consistent with the Constitution and existing laws.

3.

Further directing the incumbent Chief of the PNP, or his successor,

to furnish to this Court, the Court of Appeals, and the petitioner or her
representative, a copy of the reports of its investigations and their
recommendations, other than those that are already part of the records of
this case, within ninety (90) days from receipt of this decision.

4.

Further directing the CHR to (a) furnish to the Court of Appeals

within ninety (90) days from receipt of this decision, a copy of the reports
on its investigation and its corresponding recommendations; and to (b)
provide or continue to provide protection to the petitioner during her stay
or visit to the Philippines, until such time as may hereinafter be determined
by this Court.

EVIDENCE REQUIRED IN AMPARO PROCEEDINGS

In amparo proceedings, direct evidence of identity must be

preferred over mere circumstantial evidence In amparo
proceedings, the weight that may be accorded to parallel circumstances as
evidence of military involvement depends largely on the availability or nonavailability of other pieces of evidence that has the potential of directly
proving the identity and affiliation of the perpetrators. Direct evidence of
identity, when obtainable, must be preferred over mere circumstantial
evidence based on patterns and similarity, because the former indubitably
offers greater certainty as to the true identity and affiliation of the
perpetrators.
3.

described in the cartographic sketches submitted by the petitioner, as well

as their whereabouts; and (b) to pursue any other leads relevant to
petitioners abduction and torture.

EVIDENCE REQURED IN HABEAS DATA PROCEEDINGS

The Supreme Court likewise referred the case back to the Court of Appeals,
for the purposes of monitoring compliance with the above directives and
determining whether, in light of any recent reports or recommendations,
there would already be sufficient evidence to hold any of the public
respondents responsible or, at least, accountable. After making such
determination, the Court of Appeals shall submit its own report with
recommendation to the Supreme Court for its consideration. It was
declared that the Court of Appeals will continue to have jurisdiction over
this case in order to accomplish its tasks under this decision.

Substantial evidence of an actual or threatened violation of the

right to privacy in life, liberty or security of the victim is an
indispensable requirement before the privilege of the writ may be
extended An indispensable requirement before the privilege of the writ
may be extended is the showing, at least by substantial evidence, of an
actual or threatened violation of the right to privacy in life, liberty or
security of the victim. In the case at bar, Roxas failed to show that there is
an actual or threatened violation of such right. Hence, until such time that
any of the respondents were found to be actually responsible for the
abduction and torture of Roxas, any inference regarding the existence of
reports being kept in violation of the petitioners right to privacy becomes
farfetched, and premature. The Court must, at least in the meantime,
strike down the grant of the privilege of the writ of habeas data.
DISPOSITIVE:

G.R. No. 184769

05 October 2010 PONENTE: Carpio Morales, J.

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. However,
it modified the directive of the Court of the Appeals for further
investigation, as follows:

PARTIES:
1.

1.

Appointing the CHR as the lead agency tasked with conducting

further investigation regarding the abduction and torture of the petitioner.
Accordingly, the CHR shall, under the norm of extraordinary diligence, take
or continue to take the necessary steps: (a) to identify the persons

2.

PETITIONERS: MANILA
DEYTO and RUBEN A. SAPITULA

ELECTRIC

COMPANY,

RESPONDENTS: ROSARIO GOPEZ LIM

ALEXANDER

S.

NATURE: Petition for review on certiorari

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND:
1.

Regional Trial Court: Original petition for issuance of a writ of

habeas data

2.

Supreme Court: Appealed to the Supreme Court by way of a

petition for review on certiorari pursuant to the Rules on the Writ of Habeas
Data
FACTS:
Respondent Rosario G. Lim, also known as Cherry Lim, is an administrative
clerk at the Manila Electric Company (MERALCO). On 04 June 2008, an
anonymous letter was posted at the door of the Metering Office of the
Administration building of MERALCO Plaridel, Bulacan. The letter reads:

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. Additionally, respondent prayed for the issuance of a
Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) enjoining petitioners from effecting her
transfer to the MERALCO Alabang Sector.
In its Decision dated 22 September 2008, the RTC granted respondents
petition 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 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.
Thus, the petition for review.

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.

PERTINENT ISSUE: Whether or not the remedy of habeas data may be

properly issued to protect purely property or commercial concerns where
there is no clear showing of any unjustifiable or unlawful violation of the
right to privacy in relation to the rights to life, liberty, and security.

Copies of the letter were also inserted in the lockers of MERALCO linesmen.
ANSWER: No.
In a Memorandum dated 04 July 2008, 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.
The respondent however, did not agree with her transfer and filed an
appeal with Ruben A. Sapitula, Vice- President and Head of MERALCOs
Human Resource Administration, 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. She
likewise claimed 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 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 for the issuance of a writ of habeas data against petitioners before
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bulacan. She claimed petitioners unlawful

SUPREME COURT RULINGS:

PROPRIETY OF THE REMEDY OF HABEAS DATA
The remedy of habeas data can only be invoked to protect the
right to privacy in relation to the rights to life, liberty, and
security 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.

The Writ of Habeas Data cannot be invoked in labor disputes

where there is no unlawful violation of the right to life, liberty, or
security Castillo v. Cruz (G.R. No. 182165, November 25, 2009)
underscores the emphasis laid down in Tapuz v. del Rosario (G. R. No.
182484, June 17, 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 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 earlierquoted portion of her July 10, 2008 letter as highly suspicious, doubtful or
are just mere jokes 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.
DISPOSITIVE:
The Supreme Court granted the petition for review on certiorari. The
assailed decision of the trial court was reversed and set aside.