Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MARYNETTE R. GAMBOA v. P/SSUPT. MARLOU C. CHAN

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 203254 2014-10-08	DR. JOY MARGATE LEE v. P/SUPT. NERI A. ILAGAN PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
As defined in Section 1 of the Habeas Data Rule, the writ of habeas data now 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." Thus, in order to support a petition for the issuance of such writ, Section 6 of the Habeas Data Rule essentially requires that the petition sufficiently alleges, among others, "[t]he manner the right to privacy is violated or threatened and how it affects the right to life, liberty or security of the aggrieved party." In other words, 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.[19] Corollarily, 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.[20] In this relation, it bears pointing out that the writ of 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 and doubtful.[21]
	GR No. 202666 2014-09-29	RA AVE S. VIVARES v. ST. THERESA’S COLLEGE VELASCO JR., J.
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.[11] It is an independent and summary remedy designed to protect the image, privacy, honor, information, and freedom of information of an individual, and to provide a forum to enforce one's right to the truth and to informational privacy. It seeks to protect a person's right to control information regarding oneself, particularly in instances in which such information is being collected through unlawful means in order to achieve unlawful ends.[12]
	GR No. 161107 2013-03-12	MA. LOURDES C. FERNANDO v. ST. SCHOLASTICA'S COLLEGE MENDOZA, J.
It also appears that requiring the exposure of their property via a see- thru fence is violative of their right to privacy, considering that the residence of the Benedictine nuns is also located within the property. The right to privacy has long been considered a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution that must be protected from intrusion or constraint. The right to privacy is essentially the right to be let alone,[37] as governmental powers should stop short of certain intrusions into the personal life of its citizens.[38]