Limits of habeas data writ

WHEN the Supreme Court announced in 2008 the rules on the writ of habeas data, many lawyers expressed skepticism about the value of another addition to the country’s already overloaded court procedures.

The tribunal described the writ as an instrument to protect a person’s right to privacy and to control the release of any information about him.

It can be availed of to compel military and government agents to release information about people under surveillance and allow access by surveillance subjects to military and police files.

In what appears to be a case of misinterpretation of the rules (or worse, deliberate misapplication), the writ has been invoked in a purely employer-employee dispute.

Because of the novelty of the issue, not to mention the imaginative way the application was justified, the case wended its way to the tribunal for final resolution.

It all started with an unsigned letter posted at the door of a branch office of Manila Electric Co. in Bulacan accusing a female employee of disloyalty to the company.

Copies of the letter, which called on her to resign, were also distributed inside the office premises.

Transfer

A month later, Meralco ordered her transfer to its Muntinlupa City office in light of “… reports that there were accusations and threats directed against her from unknown individuals and which could possibly compromise her safety and security.”

She appealed the transfer and argued that “the punitive nature of the transfer amounted to a denial of due process.” She said she should have been informed of the nature of the accusations and threats so she could determine their credibility or seriousness.

Failing to get any response from the company, she filed a petition in court for a writ of habeas data against Meralco for “failure and refusal to provide her with details or information about the alleged report which … amount to a violation of her right to privacy in life, liberty and security correctible by habeas data.”

She asked the court to order the company to disclose the contents of the report, the measures it had taken to ensure the confidentiality of its contents, and the accuracy of such information.

In the meantime, she requested the issuance of a temporary restraining order to prevent her transfer to Muntinlupa City.

Justification

For its part, the company moved for the dismissal of her complaint on the grounds that the application was not in order and that the case properly belonged to the National Labor Relations Commission.

Ruling in her favor, the court ordered Meralco to desist from implementing her transfer until it had complied with the disclosures demanded.

The court said the habeas data writ “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 [Meralco’s] refusal to provide her with information or data on the reported threats to her person.”

Considering the extraordinary nature of the case, the company appealed the decision directly to the tribunal, which was docketed as “Manila Electric Co., vs. Rosario Lim,” G.R. No. 184769, Oct.5, 2010.

In its appeal, Meralco argued that the writ was directed only against public officials or private individuals engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of information about a party’s person, family or home, and that Meralco and its officers were not engaged in those activities.

The tribunal upheld the company’s position and set aside the lower court’s decision.

Property rights

The justices pointed out that the writ aims “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.”

Thus, the writ will not be issued to protect purely property rights, commercial concerns, and when the grounds cited in support of an application are vague or doubtful.

Stating that employment constitutes a property right under the due process clause of our Constitution, the tribunal stressed that the subject employee’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.”

Considering the attendant circumstances, those concerns should therefore be raised with the labor arbiters.

On the issue of Meralco’s refusal to disclose the contents of the reports that pertain to her, the tribunal ruled it does not constitute an unjust or unlawful violation of her right to privacy in relation to her right to life, liberty or security.

With this ruling, it’s back to square one for the employee; this time, though, she has to go the NLRC to question the validity of the transfer.

Nice try, but the rules on redress for grievances in our legal system are quite clear. No shortcuts, please. –Raul J. Palabrica, Philippine Daily Inquirer

(For feedback, please write to .)