Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • MERALCO V. Lim

    Uploaded by

    adee
    444 views2 pages
    This case involves Rosario Lim, an administrative clerk at Manila Electric Company (MERALCO) who was directed to transfer worksites due to anonymous letters denouncing her. Lim appealed the transfer, claiming it was punitive and violated her due process rights. She filed a writ of habeas data, arguing MERALCO's refusal to provide details about the letters violated her privacy. The court found that habeas data was not the proper remedy, as MERALCO was not engaged in collecting personal data, and the real issue regarded Lim's employment terms, which falls under the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Commission. The court ruled habeas data did not apply and dismissed the case.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    130. MERALCO V. Lim

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This case involves Rosario Lim, an administrative clerk at Manila Electric Company (MERALCO) who was directed to transfer worksites due to anonymous letters denouncing her. Lim appealed the transfer, claiming it was punitive and violated her due process rights. She filed a writ of habeas data, arguing MERALCO's refusal to provide details about the letters violated her privacy. The court found that habeas data was not the proper remedy, as MERALCO was not engaged in collecting personal data, and the real issue regarded Lim's employment terms, which falls under the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Commission. The court ruled habeas data did not apply and dismissed the case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    444 views2 pages

    MERALCO V. Lim

    Uploaded by

    adee
    This case involves Rosario Lim, an administrative clerk at Manila Electric Company (MERALCO) who was directed to transfer worksites due to anonymous letters denouncing her. Lim appealed the transfer, claiming it was punitive and violated her due process rights. She filed a writ of habeas data, arguing MERALCO's refusal to provide details about the letters violated her privacy. The court found that habeas data was not the proper remedy, as MERALCO was not engaged in collecting personal data, and the real issue regarded Lim's employment terms, which falls under the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Commission. The court ruled habeas data did not apply and dismissed the case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    238. Manila Electric Company, Alexander Deyto and Ruben Sapitula V.

    Rosario Gopez Lim


    G.R. No. 184769, October 5, 2010
    Carpio-Morales, J.:

    Petitioners: Manila Electric Company [MERALCO], employer of the respondent. Alexander Deyto, head of
    MERALCO’s Human Resource Staffing. Ruben Sapitula, Vice President and Head of MERALCO’s Human
    Resource Administration.

    Respondents: Rosario Gopez Lim, also known as Cherry Lim, is an administrative clerk at the MERALCO

    Facts:
    -An anonymous letter was posted at the door of the Metering Office of the Administration building of
    MERALCO Bulacan denouncing Lim, an administrative clerk. A Memorandum was issued directing her to
    be transferred to MERALCO’s Alabang Sector in Muntinlupa because 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
    misgiving on the matter, claiming that the “punitive” nature of the transfer amounted to denial of her due
    process. Citing the grueling travel from her residence in Pampanga to Alabang and back entails.
    -She wrote a letter stating that:
    “It appears that the veracity of these accusations and threats to be [sic] highly suspicious, doubtful or are
    just mere jokes if they existed at all.” She added, “instead of the management supposedly
    extending favor to me, the net result and effect of management action would be a punitive one.”
    -Lim requested for deferment of the implementation of the transfer thereafter. Since the company didn’t
    respond, she filed for the issuance of a writ of habeas data in the Bulacan RTC due to
    Meralco’s omission of providing her with details about the report of the letter. Amount to a violation of
    her right to privacy in life, liberty and security. Respondents prayed for the issuance of a writ
    commanding petitioners to file a written return containing the following:
    a.) a full disclosure of the data about respondent in relation to the report purportedly received by the
    petitioners on the alleged threat to her safety and security.
    b.) the measures taken by the petitioners to ensure the confidentiality of such data
    c.) the currency and accuracy of such data.
    -Respondent also prayed for the issuance of a TRO enjoining petitioners from effecting her
    transfer to the Alabang Sector.
    -Meralco filed a reply saying that the jurisdiction was with the NLRC and that the petition wasn’t
    in order.

    RTC Ruling: By Order of August 29, 2008, RTC directed the petitioners to file their verified written return.
    And by Order of September 5, 2008, the RTC granted the respondent’s application for a TRO. By Decision
    of September 22, 2008, 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.

    Petitioner’s Arguments:
    -Petitioners argue that “although ingeniously crafted as a petition for habeas data, respondent is
    essentially questioning the transfer of her place of work by her employer” and the terms and conditions
    of her employment which arise from an employer-employee relationship.
    -RTC lacked jurisdiction over the case which properly belongs to the National Labor Relations
    Commission [NLRC].

    Respondent’s Arguments:
    -MERALCO’s 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.

    Issue: WON hebeas data is proper or right remedy for the respondent. -NO

    Fallo: WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed September 22, 2008 Decision of the Bulacan
    RTC, Branch 7 in SP. Proc. No. 213-M-2008 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. SP. Proc. No. 213-M-
    2008 is, accordingly, DISMISSED.

    Held:
    -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 clearly not engage in such activities.
    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”
    -It’s a forum for enforcing one’s right to the truth. Like writ of amparo, habeas data was a response to
    killings and enforced disappearances.
    -Castillo v. Cruz-underscores the emphasis that 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.
    Lim was concerned with her employment, one that can be solved in the NLRC.
    -There was no violation of respondent’s right to privacy. Respondent even said that the letters were mere
    jokes and even conceded the fact that the issue was labor related due to references to “real intent of
    management”.

    You might also like