VIII.

G.R. No. 184769               October 5, 2010

MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, ALEXANDER S. DEYTO and RUBEN A. SAPITULA, petitioners, vs. ROSARIO GOPEZ

May an employee invoke the remedies available under writ of habeas data 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?

Facts: Rosario G. Lim (respondent), also known as Cherry Lim, is an administrative clerk at the Manila Electric Company
(MERALCO). 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. KAPAL NG MUKHA MO, LUMAYAS KA RITO, WALANG UTANG NA
LOOB…

Copies of the letter were also inserted in the lockers of MERALCO linesmen. Informed about it, respondent reported the
matter to the Philippine National Police.

By Memorandum, petitioner directed the transfer of respondent to MERALCO’s Alabang Sector in Muntinlupa 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 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.

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).

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.
Additionally, respondent prayed for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) enjoining petitioners from effecting
her transfer to the MERALCO Alabang Sector. RTC directed petitioners to file their verified written return and 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).

RTC: 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 Habeas
Data.

Issue: A) Whether or not 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
B) Whether or not the issuance of the writ is outside the parameters expressly set forth in the Rule on the Writ of Habeas
Data.

Held: The petition is impressed with merit. 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 Data provides:

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.

Castillo v. Cruz underscores the emphasis laid down in Tapuz v. del Rosario 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.

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-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 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 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 "betrays 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.