Lee V. Ilagan G.R. No. 203254. October 8, 2014

LEE v.
ILAGAN
G.R. No. 203254. October 8, 2014.
For a writ of habeas data to be granted, the petition must adequately show that there exists a nexus between the right to privacy on the
one hand, and the right to life, liberty or security on the other. The allegations must be supported by substantial evidence showing an
actual or threatened violation of the right to privacy in life, liberty or security of the victim.
Overview
Petitioner is former common-law partner of respondent. Petitioner has respondent’s digital camera which contains a sex video of him
and another woman. Ilagan allegedly slammed Lee’s head against a wall during a confrontation about the sex video.Subsequently, Lee
utilized the video as evidence in filing a criminal and administrative complaint against Ilagan.
RTC issued the Writ of Habeas Data to produce Ilagan’s digital camera, as well as the negative and/or original of the subject video and
copies thereof. Hence, Lee filed this certiorari before the SC.
SC granted the certiorari. Ilagan failed to sufficiently allege that his right to privacy in life, liberty or security was or would be violated
through the supposed reproduction and threatened dissemination of the subject sex video. Alleging and eventually proving the nexus
between one’s privacy right to the cogent rights to life, liberty, or security are crucial in habeas data cases, so much that a failure on
either account certainly renders a habeas data petition dismissable.
Facts
Petitioner Lee is former common law partner of defendant Ilagan. Sometime July 2011, Lee was able to obtain Ilagan’s digital camera
containing a sex video of respondent with another woman. During confrontation, Ilagan allegedly slammed Lee’s head against a wall.
Subsequently, Lee utilized the said video as evidence in filing a criminal and administrative complaint against Ilagan.
Ilagan filed a petition with the RTC for the issuance of a writ a habeas data claiming that Lee’s acts of reproducing the subject video
and threatening to distribute the same to the upper echelons of the NAPOLCOM and uploading it to the Internet violated not only his
right to life, liberty, and security, and privacy but also that of the other woman.
Lower Court Ruling:

RTC: Issued the Writ of Habeas Data
The RTC issued the Writ directing Lee to appear before the court and to produce Ilagan’s digital camera, as well as the negative, and/or
original of the subject video and copies thereof. Lee admitted that she indeed has the digital camera and reproduced the said video but
averred that she did only so to utilize the same as evidence in the cases she filed against Ilagan.
The RTC did not give credence to Lee’s defense that she is not engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data regarding the
person of Ilagan. Hence the petition for certiorari before the SC.
Issue: W/N the the RTC correctly extended the privilege of the writ of habeas data in favor of Ilagan?
Ruling: No.
The court states that the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data was conceived as a response to address the extraordinary rise in the number
of killings and enforced disappearances. It was conceptualized as a judicial remedy enforcing the right to privacy, most especially to the
right to informational privacy of individuals.
As defined in Sec. 1 of the Habeas Datas Rule, the writ of habeas data stands as “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”
In order to support a petition for Habeas Data, it must show that there exists a nexus between the right to privacy on the one hand, and
the right to life, liberty or security on the other. The allegations in the petition must be supported by substantial evidence showing an
actual or threatened violation of the right to privacy in life, liberty or security of the victim.
Ilagan was unable to sufficiently allege that was right to privacy in life, liberty or security was or would be violated through the supposed
reproduction and threatened dissemination of the subject sex video. Alleging and eventually proving the nexus between one’s privacy
right to the cogent rights to life, liberty, or security are crucial in habeas data cases, so much that a failure on either account certainly
renders a habeas data petition dismissable.
Disposition: Petition, granted. RTC decision reversed and set aside.

Lee V. Ilagan G.R. No. 203254. October 8, 2014

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lee V. Ilagan G.R. No. 203254. October 8, 2014

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lee V. Ilagan G.R. No. 203254. October 8, 2014

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LEE v.

Lower Court Ruling:

Disposition: Petition, granted. RTC decision reversed and set aside.

You might also like