Case Digest: MERALCO, Alexander Deyto and Ruben Sapitula vs Rosarion Gopez Lim GR No 184769

MERALCO, Alexander Deyto and Ruben Sapitula vs Rosarion Gopez Lim

GR No 184769                                                                   October 5, 2010

Facts:
Lim is an administrative clerk at MERALCO, an anonymous letter was posted at the door of her assigned office denouncing respondent. By Memorandum of Alexander (head of MERALCO Human Resource Staffing), he directed the transfer of respondent to another sector due to the accusations and threats against her from unknown individuals and which could possible compromise her safety and security.

Lim then requested deferment of his transfer, but due to futility, she filed a TRO for her transfer and a petition for issuance of a writ of habeas data against MERALCO commanding MERALCO, to wit:

1. Full disclosure of a the data or information about respondent in relation to the report purportedly received by petitioners on the alleged threat to her safety and security; 
2. The nature of such data and te purpose of its collection;
3. The measure taken by MERALCO to ensure the confidentiality of such data or information; and
4. The currency and accuracy of such data or information;

Issue:
Whether or not habeas data is proper in this case.

Ruling:
No, the writ of habeas data directs the issuance only against public officials or employees, or private individuals or entities engaged in gathering, collecting or storing of data or information regarding an aggrieved party’s person, family or home and MERALCO is not engage in such activities.

Habeas data is designated 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. There is no showing from the facts presented that petitioners committed any unjustifiable or unlawful violation of respondents right to privacy, life, liberty or security.