sandra cam v. "sir noy", (dar) asst. sec. almario

8/10/2019 Sandra Cam v. "Sir Noy", (DAR) Asst. Sec. Almario

1/7

Sirs/Mesdames:

aepublic

of

tbe lbilippine i

~ u p r m

Q ourt

fffilanila

EN BANC

N O T I E

Please take notice that the Court en bane issued a Resolution

dated

OCTOBER 14, 2014,

which reads as follows:

G.R. No. 212174-- Sandra

Cam

petitioner vs. Sir Noy, Assistant Secretary

Alex

G. Almario,Marlon Adigue Mahi/um (Driver), John Doe nd Richard Doe,

respondents.

RESOLUTION

This is a Petition for Writ o Habeas Data filed by petitioner Sandra Cam

(petitioner).

Petitioner alleged that from April 30, 2014 to May 3,

2 0 1 ~

a white Toyota

Innova and black pickup without plate numbers (subject vehicles) conducted

surveillance around Nazareth Institute

o

Alfonso which is a school managed by

petitioner and where she resides temporarily; that on April 30, 2014, respondent

Alex

G.

Almario (respondent Almario), an Assistant Secretary in the Department

o Agrarian Reform (DAR), went to Nazareth Institute o Alfonso and left his

calling card; that respondent Almario claimed to

e

an unofficial representative

and requested to talk with petitioner about an alleged List containing the names

o Cabinet officials and legislators involved in the alleged pork barrel scam; that

from April 30, 2014 to May 3 2014, the subject vehicles along with other vehicles

were seen suspiciously roaming around the school's premises; that the subject

vehicles parked in the same spot where the closed circuit television (cctv) could

not capture their images; that petitioner reported the menacing vehicular

movements by phone to Archbishop Oscar Cruz, Melchor Magdamo, and many

others; and that the foregoing incidents were reported to the police on May 3,

2014, and are recorded in a police blotter.

Petitioner prayed that a Writ o Habeas Data be issued; that respondents e

ordered to cease and desist from conducting reconnaissance and/or surveillance

activities in or around the private residence o petitioner; and that respondent

Almario be ordered to explain why he made numerous attempts to personally talk

with petitioner from April 30, 2014 to May 3, 2014.


2/7

Notice of Resolution

2

G.R. No. 212174

October 14, 2014

On June 3, 2014, the Court issued a Resolution

1

requiring respondents to

comment on the subject Petition within ten (10) days from notice thereof

On July 7, 2014, respondents, through the Solicitor General, submitted their

Comment2 in which they contend that: (1) the President is immune from suit, (2)

the Petition is fatally defective for failure to allege the actions and recourses taken

by the petitioner to secure the data or information, and (3) petitioner failed to

allege

how

her right to privacy

was

violated or threatened, and

how

such affected

her right to life, liberty or security.

On August 19, 2014, the Court issued a Resolution

3

directing respondent

Almario to comment

on

the allegations relative to his participation in the alleged

menacing surveillance activities and his repeated request for a face-to-face

meeting with petitioner.

On October 1 2014, respondent Almario, joined

by

respondent Marlon

Mahilum (respondent Mahilum), filed their Comment. They contend that the Writ

of Habeas Data is a remedy directed against a public official or employee or a

private individual or entity engaged in gathering, collecting or storing

of

data or

information; that respondents Almario and Mahilum, being

an

Assistant Secretary

of

the

DAR

and a mere driver

of

the former, respectively do not belong to the

category

of

public officials engaged in gathering, collecting

or

storing

of

data or

information regarding the person, family, home and correspondence of an

individual, including the petitioner; that

no

extrajudicial killing

or

enforced

disappearance is involved in this case; that the Petition failed to allege that the

information sought to be disclosed by petitioner was under the custody or control

of respondents Almario and Mahilum; that assuming petitioner's resort to Writ of

Habeas Data is proper, the same should be filed against the custodian or possessor

of

the information and not against respondents; that petitioper is not the aggrieved

party considering that the alleged information or List in her possession is not

hers to keep; in fact, the information sought to be collected from petitioner are

matters of public concern and have nothing to do with petitioner's person, family

or

home. n any case, respondents Almario and Mahilum deny having conducted

surveillance activities in Alfonso, Cavite; and that on April 3 and May 2, 2014,

they were at the

DAR

Central Office in Quezon City during the time material to

this case.

n

addition, respondents Almario and Mahilum assert that on May 1

2014 they went to Tagaytay City; that to avoid traffic, they took the Alfonso,

Cavite route in going back to Manila; that knowing that they would pass by

petitioner's house - and considering that respondent Almario is acquainted with

petitioner since he was a Provincial Board Member in Masbate (whose Governor

then, both

he

and the petitioner supported), respondents decided to visit petitioner

at her residence on the spur of the moment; that upon inquiry, they were informed

that petitioner was not around; thus respondents proceeded to Quezon City

arriving thereat at around 4 p.m.; that they do not have back-up vehicles, that the

1

Rollo

p. 35.

2

Id. at 36-44.

3

Id. at 45-46.


3/7

Notice

of Resolution

- 3 -

G.R.

No. 212174

October 14, 2014

following day, petitioner called

up

respondent Almario and they even exchanged

pleasantries. Finally, respondents Almario and Mahilum contend that the Petition

is

fatally defective for failure to specifically allege unjustified or unlawful

violation of petitioner's right

t

privacy related t her life, liberty or security; as

such, t must be dismissed outright.

For resolution before this Court

is

whether the Writ of

Habeas Data

should

issue.

We dismiss the Petition.

The subject Petition for Writ

of Habeas Data

was filed in the wrong

venue. Section 3 of the Rule on the Writ of

Habeas Data

provides

SEC. 3 here to File. The petition may be filed with the

Regional Trial Court where petitioner or respondent resides, or that which

has jurisdiction over the place where the data or information are 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.

(Emphasis supplied)

The subject Petition was filed directly with this Court. However, there

is no allegation to the effect that the subject Petition involves or concerns

public data files of government offices. Rather, the subject Petition

principally involves alleged menacing surveillance activities through

unidentified and unregistered vehicles. Further, no special or compelling

reason has been proffered by petitioner which would otherwise justify the

relaxation

of

the rule on venue in this case.

Section 6

of

the Rule on the Writ

of

Habeas Data

states

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 [by which] 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.


4/7

Notice

o

Resolution

G.R. No. 212174

October 14 2014

In case o 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.

Section 6 requires specific and verified allegations in support o

petitioner's cause o action. t further requires that petitioner allege the

courses o action he or she

h s undert ken

to protect the right to privacy or

the right to life, liberty or security o the petitioner.

4

t is reasonable to

presume that the Rule requires the petitioner to allege the courses o action he or

she has undertaken in order to determine i there are sufficiently important

or compelling reasons to issue the writ considering that it is an extraordinary

remedy.

In the case at bar, petitioner alleged that from April 30, 2014 to May 3

2014, the subject vehicles were seen suspiciously roaming around the school's

premises, where petitioner temporarily resides. On May 3, 2014, Susan Ilagan, the

school's registrar, had the alleged events entered in the blotter o the Alfonso

Municipal Police Station.

5

The subject Petition, however, does not allege whether

petitioner immediately sought the assistance o the police in order to apprehend

the drivers and passengers o the subject vehicles to put a stop to the latter's

alleged menacing surveillance activities, which could presumably encroach upon

petitioner's privacy. There

is

nothing to suggest that the police withheld or would

have withheld such assistance i the same was sought by petitioner or that the

police were in complicity with the drivers and passengers o the subject vehicles.

In view thereof, while petitioner's allegations o surveillance through the

subject unregistered vehicles may be a cause for concern and further

investigation by the police, from whom petitioner may seek adequate relief,

they are inadequate, within the context

o

the instant case, to merit the

issuance o the extraordinary writ which is reserved only for such

sufficiently serious and credible threats to an individual's right to privacy in

relation to the right to life, liberty or security.

The writ o

habeas data

was conceptualized as a judicial remedy

enforcing the right to privacy, most especially the right to informational

privacy o individuals. The writ operates to protect a person's right to control

information regarding himself, particularly in the instances where such

information is being collected through unlawful means in order to achieve

unlawful ends. Needless to state, an indispensable requirement before the

privilege o the writ may be extended is the showing, at least by substantial

evidence,

o

an actual or threatened violation

o

the right to privacy in life,

liberty or security o the victim. There must exist a nexus between the right to

privacy on the one hand and the right to life, liberty or security on the other.

7

There

must also be substantial evidence to support the allegations. And the threat must

4

Annotation to the Writ

o Habeas Data

issued by the Supreme Court. (Emphasis supplied)

5

Annex

L

Petition,

rollo p.

31.

6

Roxas v Arroyo

G.R. No. 189155, September 7, 2010, 630 SCRA 211, 239-240.

7

Gamboa v Chan G.R. No. 193636, July 24, 2012, 677 SCRA 385, 400.

f


5/7

.o

Notice ofResolution

- 5 -

G.R. No. 212174

October 14, 2014

find rational basis on the surrounding circumstances

of

the case; it must be

supported by independent and credible evidence.

8

In the case at bar, petitioner failed to carry this

onus.

First, petitioner did not sufficiently establish that respondent Almario

was behind the alleged surveillance over her person conducted through the

subject vehicles. The Petition merely alleges that the days

i.e.,

April 30 to

May 3, 2014) when the menacing surveillance occurred coincided with one

of

the days

i.e.,

April 30, 2014) when respondent Almario dropped by

petitioner's school and requested for a face-to-face meeting with petitioner.

There are no allegations of overt or covert acts to suggest that the subject

vehicles escorted respondent Almario or that they were part of one group

when respondent Almario dropped by petitioner's school to request for the

meeting.

Second, respondent Almario's act

of

requesting a face-to-face meeting

with petitioner, assuming this to be true, does not causally or reasonably

relate to the alleged threat to her right to privacy vis-a-vis her right to life,

liberty or security.

f

petitioner finds respondent Almario's acts vexatious,

then there are sufficient remedies - administrative, civil and criminal - that

she may avail of.

Third, petitioner's allegations are not supported by credible,

independent and corroborative evidence. From April 30 to May 3, 2014,

petitioner claims that she observed that the subject vehicles purposely

evaded the cctv

of

the school but she herself did not once attempt to take

pictures

of

the subject vehicles during the alleged four-day surveillance over

her person nor did she immediately seek police assistance to apprehend the

drivers and passengers

of

the subject vehicles. She waited for four days

before asking her school's registrar, Susan Ilagan, to have the matter

reported to the police. Considering also that the place allegedly subject

of

the menacing surveillance was a school, petitioner did not explain why she

failed to submit substantial corroborating evidence apart from the blotter

report made by the school registrar, Susan Ilagan.

Moreover, we note that the Writ of Habeas Data is a remedy

enforceable against a public official or employee, or 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.

9

As correctly pointed out by respondents, their functions as public

officials do not extend to gathering, collecting or storing of data or

information regarding the person, family, home and correspondence

of

certain individuals. As such, they are not the proper parties to this case. In

addition, respondents correctly argue that petitioner could not be considered

8

Saez

v

Arroyo, G.R. No. 183533, September 25, 2012, 681SCRA678, 691-692.

9

A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC (Rule on the Writ

of

Habeas Data, Section

1 .


6/7

Notice

o

Resolution

- 6 -

G.R. No. 212174

October 14, 2014

the aggrieved party in the instant suit. As claimed by petitioner herself, the

so-called List contains the names o cabinet officials and legislators

involved in the alleged pork barrel scam. In short, the information allegedly

being gathered does not concern petitioner; neither does it pertain to

petitioner's family, home and correspondence. In fact, the information is o

public concern which, according to respondents, is not petitioner's to keep.

Further, Section 6( d) o the Rule on the Writ o Habeas Data requires

the Petition to allege [t]he location o the files, registers or database, the

government office, and the person in charge, in possession or in control o

the data or information, i known. In the instant case, petitioner utterly

failed to comply with this requirement. Nowhere was it mentioned in the

Petition that herein respondents are the persons in charge, in possession, or

in control o the data or information.

Finally, the other allegations in the subject Petition, i.e. that the

President is willfully suppressing the right o the people to information on

matters o public concern relative to the List o government officials

involved in the alleged pork barrel scam, lie outside the ambit o the writ.

Petitioner may pursue such claims in a proper suit, invoking her

constitutional right to information under Article III, Section

?

o

the

Constitution,

i

she

is

so minded.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING

the Petition is DISMISSED.

Velasco, Jr., J., on official leave. Brion, J., on leave. (adv58)

Very truly yours,

E N ~ ~ I D L

Clerk o Court

~

10

The right

o

the people to information on matters

o

public concern shall

be

recognized. Access to

official records, and to documents, and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, s well

as to government research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject

to such limitations s may be provided by law.


7/7

e

Resolution

ATTY. REYNALDO

L

BAGATSING reg)

Bagatsing Law Office

Counsel for Petitioner

Suite 1203 Marbella II Condominium

2071 Roxas Boulevard, Malate

Manila

IC NFORMATION OFFICE x)

LIBRARY

SERVICES.

x)

[For uploading

pursuant to A.M. No.

12-7-1-SC]

JUDGMENT DIVISION

x)

JUDICIAL

RECORDS

OFFICE x)

Supreme

Court

G R No

212174

fam

101414 adv58)101614

7

G

R No.

212174

October

14,

2014

THE

SOLICITOR

GENERAL reg)

SENIOR STATE

SOLICITOR

FLORIN T. HILBAY

reg)

ASSOCIATE SOLICITOR

EMERSON

S BANEZ reg)

ATTY.

II

RAMON

ANTONIO

D PANDAN

reg)

134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village

1229 Makati City

ASSISTANT

SECRETARY

ALEX G

ALMARIO reg)

MARLON ADIGUE MAHILUM reg)

Department

of

Agrarian

Reform

Quezon

Memorial Circle

Quezon City

ATTY. VITALIANO N AGUIRRE II reg)

Counsel

for

Respondents

Asst.

Secretary Alex

G.

Almario

and

Marlon Adigue Mahilum

Suite 2104, Atlanta Centre,

No.

31 Annapolis Street

Greenhills, San Juan

City

sandra cam v. "sir noy", (dar) asst. sec. almario

Documents