REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

MOCK COURT
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF LAW
BAGUIO CITY
JOEY MARKETS,

SPEC. PROC. NO. ______

Petitioner,

-versus-

FOR

ABC Publishing Company, TINY TONY in

HABEAS DATA
his capacity as President, VINO VULGAR
in his capacity as Editor-in-Chief, and
CHRISTY FERMENT,
Respondents.
x----------------------------------------x

WRIT OF

MEMORANDUM FOR THE OPPOSITION

Oppositor, by Counsel and unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully
submits this Memorandum and for this purpose respectfully states and
shows:
PREFATORY STATEMENT
This case was initiated by a Petition which was filed by Joey Markets, in
order for a Writ of Habeas Data to be issued by the court to ensure his
security as well as the security of this family.
The said Petition reads:
Petitioner, by counsel, respectfully states:
NATURE OF THE PETITION
1. This is a petition for the writ of habeas data filed under kM. No. 08-1-16- SC, also
known as the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data, promulgated on 22 January 2008, and
which took effect on February 2, 2008.
2. The purpose of this petition is to require the respondents to appear before the Court
to confirm or deny whether they have been conducting surveillance operations on
him and his family for his suspected involvement in questionable methods to further
his business. Petitioner prays that the respondents submit to the Court and disclose
to him any photographs, reports, data, or information gathered in the course of their
story buildup against him. He likewise prays that after due hearing, during which
petitioner seeks for the opportunity to demonstrate utter lack of basis to put him
under any form of surveillance, the respondents be enjoined to respect his right to
be left alone, to stop any ongoing story buildup, and to suppress or destroy any
database of information gathered against him. Further, he wants the respondents to
rectify erroneous information in order that he may regain the lost trust and
confidence of the public in line with his product line and for the reparation of damage
done to his reputation.
3. Respondents obtained the information unlawfully without the petitioners consent,
and have unlawfully published the same to the damage of the petitioners person,
family, home, correspondence and business. The violation to the petitioners privacy
of life, liberty and security was made possible through respondents newsgathering
practice which includes the use of personal documents such as letters or
photographs without permission, anonymous sources, and deception to obtain

information. Such newsgathering practice was rife with sensationalism, sloppy

reporting and breaches of professional and ethical standards. Further, they have
unjustifiably failed to rectify said error by not issuing a public apology as demanded
by petitioner.
4. These acts and/or omissions of respondents violate, or pose a threat of violation to
petitioners right to privacy in life, liberty and security.
5. In view of the foregoing, petitioner brings this petition before this Honorable Court
praying that the respondent be required to cause the immediate production of the
information requested so as the same may be revealed to petitioner for proper
updating, rectification or in the alternative, for its suppression or destruction,
whatever may be necessary to protect the privacy of petitioner and prevent further
damage to his person, family, home, correspondence and business.
PARTIES
6. Petitioner is a Filipino, of legal age, married, and residing at No. 1, Gonzaga Building,
San Luis, Baguio City. He may be served with notices from this Honorable Court
through his undersigned counsel.
7. Petitioner is the president owner of See Kay Scents, a corporation duly organized
under the laws of the Philippines and the manufacturer and seller of VhaIze,ue
perfumes, the leading perfume in the Philippines. Its principal office is located at #1
Trancoville, Baguio City where it may be served with summons and other legal
processes.
8. Respondent ABC Publishing Company is the publisher of News Today, a newspaper of
general circulation, with principal office located at #45 Loakan Road, Baguio City.
9. Respondent Tiny Tony is of legal age, single, and residing at # 54 Trancoville Baguio
City where he may be served with summons and other legal processes. He is
impleaded herein in his capacity as the President of ABC Publishing Company.
10. Respondent Vino Vulgar is of legal age, single, and residing at # 97 Trancoville,
Baguio City where he may be served with summons and other legal processes. He is
impleaded herein in his capacity as the Editor-In-Chief of ABC Publishing Company.
11. Respondent Christy Ferment is of legal age, single, and residing at #203 Middle
Quezon Hill, Baguio City where she may be served with summons and other legal
processes. She is impleaded herein in her capacity as a Columnist of Newspaper
Today.
MATERIAL ALLEGATIONS
12. Petitioner is a citizen of the Republic of the Philippines whose right to privacy is
protected by the Bill of Rights found in Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution,
which provides:
Section 3. (1) The privacy of the communication and correspondence shall be
inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order
requires otherwise as prescribed by law. Any evidence obtained in violation of the
preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
13. As well, under Articles 19 and 26 of the Civil Code:
Article 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the
performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe
honesty and good faith.
Article 26. Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and
peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons.
14. On 15 October 2008, in the Business Column of News Today where the said
newspaper has a monthly feature entitled Business Tycoon of the Month, herein
petitioner read a column written by the respondent columnist about his flourishing
business and insinuating that he is engaged in illicit activities, including non-payment
of import taxes. It also stated that the products made by petitioners company
contained addicting elements, which when introduced into the body, cause
undesirable health effects, such as cancer of the skin. A clipping of the
abovementioned article is attached herewith as Annex A.
15. On or about the last week of October, 2008, petitioner and his driver noticed that he
is often if not always followed by a black Honda Civic car with plate no. DEE 220. The
said car would follow him from the time he leaves his home in the morning up to the
time he goes out of his workplace late in the afternoon. Attached herewith as Annex
B is the Affidavit of Petitioners driver, Mr. Chu Per.
16. On 4 November 2008, after the petitioner attended a seminar at the Mt. Crest Hotel,
he noticed that he was being singled out and photographed by an unknown person.
17. On 7 November 2008, petitioner received a call from Mr. Fab Ango, a loyal client,
asking if he received the orders sent by the latter thru registered mail because his
orders were not yet sent by petitioner. Petitioner never received the said mail despite

the fact that it was received by the Baguio City post office as shown by a certification
by the post master attached herewith as Annex C.
18. On 8 November 2008, when he was about to write an entry in his daily journal, as he
does every morning, he discovered that the same was missing from his drawer in his
office desk. He tried to search for the same but to no avail.
19. On several occasions, some of his loyal clients withdrew their orders allegedly due to
the news article about the petitioner.
20. On 13 November 2008, Ms. Ana Karenina, the principal of Special Education Center
(SPED), Baguio City called the attention of the petitioner about the people who are
representing themselves as his associates who often come to the school to ask
questions concerning the whereabouts of his only child who is currently studying in
the said school. They would even ask the principal if the child is indeed petitioners
legitimate child. In one instance, the child heard about it, felt threatened and cried.
Considering that the said child is mentally challenged, such unwarranted annoyance
is discouraged in the institution. Attached herewith as Annex D is her affidavit.
21. On 15 November 2008, petitioner read the sequel of the first article written by the
respondent columnist, describing his personal affairs, that he has a special child who
is illegitimate and that he is allegedly keeping a mistress. It was also written at one
occasion that he was seen entering a motel with his mistress and a photograph
thereof was included in the article. The second article stated that a concluding
episode will be published in the next issue of the newspaper. Attached herewith as
Annex E is a clipping of the said article.
22. Some of the facts published were lifted from the entries of the petitioner in his
journal, which was lost prior to the publishing of the article. These were maliciously
copied and published by the respondent company without any authority or
permission to do so from the petitioner-author as it was purely personal and not
intended to be published or to be made known to the public.
23. On 16 November 2008, while at a National Convention at Hotel Supreme, his friends
and co-businessmen were asking him about the legitimacy of his special child and his
alleged mistress, which embarrassed him greatly.
24. On 16 November 2008, petitioner sent respondents a letter demanding that
respondents reveal the sources of their information, explain why he is under
surveillance, and make a public apology for the wrongs done to him. However, after
the fifteen-day period, no action was done by the respondents. The lack of response
to his demand letter, which was duly received by respondents, constitutes an
unwarranted disturbance of his peace of mind and an unjustified incursion on his
right to security and privacy. Attached herewith as Annex F is a copy of the
demand letter.
25. By the respondents unlawful act of gathering and collecting information about
petitioners person, family and business and published the same without the
petitioners consent, and by unjustifiably refusing to return the said articles and
rectify its error by posting a public apology in a newspaper of general circulation as
demanded by petitioner, petitioners right to privacy is being violated.
26. The use and possible dissemination of the information held by respondents is an
unlawful intrusion into petitioners privacy because they were used without his
authorization. Some of the information will be revealed in following articles of the
newspaper, which intrusion threatens to ultimately violate petitioners person and his
familys right to life, liberty and security including the conduct of his business.
27. The information, which remains hidden from petitioner, is in the database of
respondent located in their principal office stated above.
RELIEFS
WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays that this Honorable Court give due course to this
petition and issue the writ of habeas data and rule, as follows:
1. Upon filing of the petition, ENJOIN respondent from disseminating the information
contained in the database of petitioner and from further violating the rights to
privacy in life, liberty, and security of petitioner. Further to enjoin respondent,
specifically, from publishing other articles about the petitioner, his family, and
business in the future;
2. Upon notice and hearing, ORDER respondent to:
a.
b.

Produce the information and documents in its possession regarding

petitioners person, his family and his business;
Rectify the damage caused to the right to privacy of petitioner, his family,
and business, also to regain the lost trust and confidence of the public in
petitioners products by posting a public apology in respondents
newspaper.

2. Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.
December 2, 2008, Baguio City, Philippines.

PMA & ASSOCIATES, LAW OFFICE

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER
No. 213 Laperal Building
Session Road, Baguio City
DEXTER PADILLA
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER
No. 213 Laperal Building
Session Road, Baguio City
IBP No. 98342, issued on April 8, 2008 at Bagulo City
PTR No. 35462, issued on April 9, 2008 at Baguio City
Roll No. 768403, April 10, 2008

STATEMENT OF FACTS
The Said Petition was read by the Oppositors, ABC Publishing Company,
Vino Vulgar, Tiny Tony and Cristy Ferment and they submitted their Answer to
the Petition for the reasons stated in their Answer which provides:
Respondents, by counsel, hereby makes due return of the writ of Habeas Data issued
by this Honorable Court on December 2, 2008, and by way of answer, most respectfully
states:
1. Respondents admit that portion in Part II of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Data
regarding the names, residences and status of the parties, but denies the rest
thereof, that is, the liability of the respondents under the writ, for lack of knowledge
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof.
2. Respondents ABC Publishing Company, Tiny Tony in his capacity as President of ABC
Publishing Company, Vino Vulgar in his capacity as Editor-in-Chief, caused the
publication of two of its three-parts series on October 15, 2008 and November 15,
2008 and the authority, the true, and the whole story and cause of the said
publication of such articles pertaining to petitioner Joey Markets are the following, to
wit:
a. On or before September 15, 2008, respondent Tiny Tony as President of ABC
Publishing Company took upon himself to direct the attention of Vino Vulgar, the
Editor-In-Chief of same company, to the obvious and unique success story of Joey
Markets in the perfume industry in the City of Bagulo as contrasted to the over-all
declining performance of other perfume companies in the City. Respondent Vino
Vulgar considered such observation worthy of media attention and thus tasked
one of its columnists, Christy Ferment to write about the matter.
b. Respondent Christy Fennent, an award-winning and credible investigatory writer,
and known for her meticulous and detailed data gathering practice was able to
deliver a story about Joey Markets which the editorial staff decided to divide in a
three parts series.
c. The first part of the series was published on October 15, 2008 and the second
part on November 15, 2008. The last of the series is scheduled to be published on
December 15, 2008. A copy of the same article for publication is herein attached
in compliance with Section 10 (b) (i) of A.M. No. 08-1-16- SC.
d. The published articles form part of ABC Publishing Companys archives and are no
longer available for republication in pursuance to the companys onetime
publication policy. Only the columnist-author of the unpublished article, and her
supervising editor have access to the article yet to be published. Whatever
personal data or information the author has in relation to her subject is solely
within her access and whatever information or data she obtained along the
process of making her story is protected by the solemn oath of confidentiality
between the writer and her sources.
e. Before the articles are published, the same must pass the guidelines set forth by
media ethics, namely the veracity of the information and the absence of
determining motive of the writer in relation to the subject she is writing thus the
accuracy of the data or information held is assured.

f.

Section 6 of the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data requires the following material
allegations of ultimate facts in a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas data:
(a) The personal circumstances of the petitioner and the respondent;
(b) The manner the right to privacy is violated or threatened and how it affects
the right to 4fe, liberty or security of the aggrieved party;
(c) The actions and recourses taken by the petitioner to secure the data or
information;
(4) The location of the files, registers or databases, the government office, and
the person in charge, in possession or in con trol of the data or information, V known;
(e) The reliefs prayed for, which may include the updating, rectWcation
suppression or destruction of the database or information or files kept by the
respondent.
In case of threats, the relief may include a prayer for an order enjoining the act
complained of; and
(1) Such other relevant reliefs as are just and equitable.
Support for the habeas data of the present petition only alleges that:
2. The purposes of this petition are to require the respondents to appear before
the Court to confirm or deny whether they have been conducting surveillance
operations on him and his family for his suspected involvement in questionable
methods to further his business. Petitioner prays that the respondents submit to the
Court and disclose to him any photographs, reports, data, or information gathered in
the course of their story buildup against him. He likewise prays that after due
hearing, during which petitioner seeks for the opportunity to demonstrate utter lack
of basis to put him under any form of surveillance, the respondents be enjoined to
respect his fight to be left alone, to stop any ongoing story buildup, and to suppress
or destroy any database of information gathered against him. Further, he wants the
respondents to rectify erroneous information in order that he may regain the lost
trust and confidence of the public in line with his product line and for the reparation
of damage done to his reputation.
These allegations obviously lack what the Rule on Writ of Habeas Data requires as a
minimum, thus rendering the petition fatally deficient. Specifically, we see no
concrete allegations of unjustified or unlawful violation of the right to privacy related
to the right to life, liberty or security. The petition likewise has not alleged, much less
demonstrated, any need for information under the control of respondents other than
those it has already set forth as integral annexes. The necessity or justification for
the issuance of the writ, based on the insufficiency of previous efforts made to secure
information aside from the demand letter, has not also been shown. In sum, the
prayer for the issuance of a writ of habeas data is nothing more than the fishing
expedition that the Supreme Court in the course of drafting the Rule on habeas data
- had in mind in defining what the purpose of a writ of habeas data is not.
g. Petitioner failed to prove unlawfulness of the gathering of data by miserably
failing to show any reasonable connection of its enumerated material allegations
of unlawful data gathering to anyone of the respondents. The questioned data
gathering practices occurred after the author has already submitted the story to
her editor.
3. Assuming, arguendo that the petition falls squarely within the parameters of the law
on the issuance of a writ of habeas data, the same is barred by the universal
guarantee of the right to freedom of expression. Article 19 of the Universal
Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR), guarantees the right to freedom of expression
in the following terms:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes the
right to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. Article 19,
UDHR, adopted by the UN General Assembly on 10 December 1948, Resolution
217A(III)]
Freedom of expression is among the most important of the rights guaranteed
because of its fundamental role in underpinning democracy. It is applicable not only
to information or ideas that are favorably received or regarded as inoffensive or as
a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or
any sector of the population, the petitioner included. It helps the watchdog function
of the media and of civil society immensely by providing benchmarks to
measure progress.
4. Assuming, further, that a writ may issue on the same petition, the same is barred by
the confidentiality of the sources of media information. Media acts as our voices by
providing a vessel for information and ideas, thus, they are legally permitted to
protect the confidentiality of their sources, moreso to be in consonance with the
pursuit of true and fair report as often aimed by the media.

5. Assuming, finally, that the writ of habeas data may be validly issued, the greater
interest of press freedom should prevail. Press freedom is guaranteed in Article III,
Section 4, of the 1987 Constitution, which states that no law can be passed that
abridges freedom of speech or of the press. The mere self-determination made by
petitioner regarding the accuracy and fairness of the newspaper articles about him
after the respondents has showed him whatever data they may have on him is a
sword that will cut in many ways to the freedom of the press, in this case, the print
media. The self-serving petitioner can demand for the destruction of the articles and
any information he thinks is destructive of his privacy twisting the truth to serve his
ends.
WHEREFORE, all the foregoing premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that the
petition for Habeas Data be denied, and that said information and data in the hands of the
respondents be ordered to remain in the custody of the respondents.
Baguio City, Philippines, December 6, 2008.

MRTG & ASSOCIATES, LAW OFFICE

COUNSEL for the Respondents
No.312 Laperal Building
Session Road, Baguio City
By:
BERNADETTE C. MENDOZA
COUNSEL for the Respondent
No.312 Laperal Building
Session Road, Baguio City
IBP No. 98342, issued on April 8, 2008 at Baguio City
PTR No. 35462, issued on April 9, 2008 at Baguio City
Roll No. 768403, April 10, 2008

ISSUE
Whether or not the Writ of Habeas Data should be issued in favor of
plaintiff.
DISCUSSION
The evidence of the petitioner is grounded merely on conjectures and
hasty generalizations. The testimony of Joey Markets was offered in order for
him to prove that his right to liberty and security has been adversely
affected by the article written by Cristy Ferment. His testimony seeks to
prove that the publishing of the articles having him as the subject gives a
threat of intrusion to his familys right to life, liberty and security including
the conduct of his business.
The petitioner also presented Mr. Chu Per, the driver of Joey Markets to
prove that indeed, they are being constantly followed by an unknown person
driving a Honda Civic Black Car.
Ms. Kornina Munchies was also presented as an expert witness to prove
the fact that the matters relating to the articles written by Cristy Ferment are
violative of the rights of Joey Markets and that it has a negative effect on the
business, family and personal life of Joey Markets.
Ana Karenina, the school principal of the school where Joey Markets
child is enrolled. Her testimony seeks to prove that there were men
presenting themselves as associates of Mr. Markets who are questioning the
whereabouts of his child and that the said child was negatively affected by
their acts and these men are actually the researchers of Cristy Ferment.

The Opposition presented Vino Vulgar, the president of ABC publishing

company, who testified on the compliance of the article on the Standards of
Media Ethics and that there really is no violation of Mr. Joey Markets rights
whatsoever because it went through a great scrutiny since the Standards of
Media Ethics have strict provisions.
Cristy Ferment was also presented as a witness to prove that the
article she had written is a product of extensive research and that all her
sources were lawful and not violative of any right enjoyed by Joey Markets.
The Petitioner has no legal ground or any basis for asking for the
issuance of a Writ of Habeas Data because his allegations are mere
conjectures. Or assuming for the sake of argument that his right to liberty
and security was indeed violated, he should have sought all means to
prevent any person from following his family and he should have done
everything to protect his person, family and business. However, there was no
sufficient ground say that his rights were indeed violated.
Moreover, the remedy sought by the petitioner is not appropriate
because his contention is groundless and does not hold water. There has
been no violation of any of his rights.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the opposition respectfully prays
that the Writ of Habeas Data applied for by the Plaintiff be DENIED. Other
just and equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for.
Done this 24th day of March 2009, Baguio City, Philippines.

BERNADETTE C. MENDOZA

BRENDA

GUPAAL

JHOANNIELOU S. TAULI
S. RAMOS

LEA CHRISTINE

__________________________________________________________________________
MRTG & ASSOCIATES, LAW OFFICE
COUNSEL for the Oppositors
No.312 Laperal Building
Session Road, Baguio City

Cc:
PMA & ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICE
COUNSEL FOR THE ACCUSED

No. 213 Laperal Building

Session Road, Baguio City