In todays fast-paced and technology-dependent world, snail mails are virtually a

thing of the past. Todays methods of communication have so evolved that we are

now capable of completing transactions in the blink of an eye, regardless of how

physically far apart we are from each other. It is therefore not so unimaginable that

the law has been adapted to cover the legal aspects and consequences of this

evolution, and as such, we now have different laws defining and delimiting the

exercise of our rights in cyberspace.

One notable method of communication in cyberspace is the use of electronic mail

(email). It is essentially the virtual counterpart of the traditional mail (snail mail)

being similar in form, function, as well as essence. Email also seems to be the more

preferred mode of transmitting official messages to and fro correspondents, as

compared to the relatively more ephemeral instant messaging or social networking

sites. This is of course not to discredit communications made over such platforms, but

I feel many would agree that people resort to email for more formal communication.

In the same way that letters sometimes get lost in the mail, or get misdelivered to a

different address or addressee, emails too suffer from this phenomenon. One would

think that with the perceived exactness of the relay of messages in a completely

automated information system, that such glitches, usually attributed to human error,

would completely vanish. Such is not the case in reality however; emails still end up

sometimes in the hands of people not intended to be the recipients thereof. The

question now before us is whether an email is entitled to confidentiality, such that

disclosure thereof without the author-senders consent would make the unintended

recipient liable under relevant Philippine laws, compounded by a situation where the

unintended recipient discloses the contents of the email to the public because it is

illegal in nature.

In order to resolve this query, it is necessary to first determine if the concept of

confidentiality in communication is recognized and protected in this jurisdiction.

1. The concept of confidentiality in the Philippines, in general

Constitutional basis: Article III, Section 3, 1987 Constitution

Under the aforementioned provision, the State expressly recognizes the right of a

person to the privacy of his communication and correspondence1, including within

that protection the right of the person to be left alone, with respect to all and any

messages sent to and by him. A person is entitled to his secrets2, and the State will

generally not be allowed to intrude upon this right.

The rule is however not absolute. In the same provision, two exceptions are provided:

first, that privacy may be intruded upon by the State upon lawful order of the court;

1
Section 3. The privacy of 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 this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible
for any purpose in any proceeding.
2
3 JOURNAL OF THE (1935) CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION (Francisco Ed.) 1034-5
and second, that privacy may be intruded upon when public safety or order so

requires, as prescribed by law. Given these, we can safely say that although private

individuals are entitled to the privacy of their communications, the exercise of this

right is to be balanced with the overriding interests of the State, and of the general

interest of the public en masse.

This specific provision in the Constitution however is not where we find our answer.

It is well-settled that the protection enshrined in the Bill of Rights is meant to be

exercised only as against the acts of government and government officials, and not

against a fellow private individual3, who may be subjected only to a civil liability that

may arise out of such violation4. It is nevertheless important to know, for the purposes

of our discussion, that confidentiality in communications is a recognized right in the

Philippines, and is in fact, protected under the highest law of the land.

Given that it is not the Constitution which strictly governs the issue in this case, we

must now look at the relevant statutes, whence we may be able to find the basis for

the recognized exceptions against the exercise of the right to confidentiality in

communications.

3
People v. Marti 193 SCRA 57 (1991)
4
Art. 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who directly or
indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the
following rights and liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for damages:
xxx
(11) The privacy of communication and correspondence;
xxx
 2. Statutes pertinent to confidentiality in private communications

Under the Civil Code and The Intellectual Property Code5

As earlier suggested, emails are essentially electronic snail mails or traditional letters.

Under Philippine law, letters and other private communications in writing are

governed by Section 723 of the New Civil Code6, which recognizes a dual interest or

property right in letters sent by one person to another7. There is a distinction between

the interest of the recipient, as against that of the author-sender: on one hand, the

physical or material letter is owned by the recipient, while the contents belong to the

author-sender as his intellectual property, in the same manner as a literary work8. It is

therefore a proper subject of and is entitled to copyright protection as an original

work, and the author-sender is entitled to the economic and moral rights provided

5
Republic Act no. 8293, An Act Prescribing the Intellectual Property Code and Establishing
the Intellectual Property Office, Providing for Its Powers and Functions, and For Other
Purposes
6
Article 723. Letters and other private communications in writing are owned by the
person to whom they are addressed and delivered, but they cannot be published or
disseminated without the consent of the writer or his heirs. However, the court may
authorize their publication or dissemination if the public goof or the interest of justice so
requires.
7
Tolentino, Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil Code of the Philippines, Volume
II, 2002 , p.502
8
172.1 Literary and Artistic Works, hereinafter referred to as works, are original
intellectual creations in the literary and artistic domain from the moment of their creation
and shall include in particular:
xxx
1. Letters;
xxx
under the Intellectual Property Code, more specifically the exclusive right to

reproduction9, and other communication to the public of the work10.

Again, as in the case of our preceding discussion on the relevant constitutional

provision, the laws admit of exceptions. In the same Civil Code provision, publication

or dissemination may be allowed even without the authors consent if public good or

the interest of justice so requires, provided that there is court authorization therefor.

And under the laws on copyright, Sections 184 and 185 provide the instances where

there is no copyright infringement. As thus presented, the foregoing affirms our

conclusion that although the right is protected and upheld by the State, the same is not

absolute, and may be overridden by considerations of greater importance, like the

public good, public interest, the interest of justice, and the like.

It should be noted that the foregoing provisions do not necessarily tackle the issue of

confidentiality of communications per se; the protection provided by the statutes

pertains more to the regulation of the use and dissemination of copyrighted works,

which in this case, happens to be in the form of letters and private communications.

At any rate, the purpose of this section is to establish that the contents of a letter

properly belongs to the author thereof, such author being the one entitled to the

9
Section 117. Copyright or Economic Rights. Subject to the provisions of Chapter VIII,
copyright or economic rights shall consist of the exclusive right to carry out, authorize, or
prevent the following acts:
177.1 Reproduction of the work or substantial portion of the work;
xxx
10
177.7 Other communication to the public of the work.
communication, publication, and dissemination of his work, generally to the

exclusion of all others. He may then validly prohibit the further communication,

publication, or dissemination of the contents of his letter, and may pursue legal action

in case of breach of such obligation, provided that the case does not fall within any of

the recognized exceptions. Applied to our issue at hand, this merely means that in

order for there to be no liability for the communication to the public of the illegal

contents of a persons private mail, we must establish that this case falls within the

recognized exceptions, if not under the foregoing provisions, then under other

relevant laws in this jurisdiction.

This gives rise to another sub-question: will the same principle governing traditional

mail be applicable in the same manner and extent to an email?

Under the E-Commerce Act of 200011

We have said before that email is essentially the virtual counterpart of traditional

mail. This assertion is not without any legal basis; under the E-Commerce Act of

2000, an email would suitably be covered by the definition of an electronic data

message under Section 5 (c)12, and even within the narrower definition of an

11
Republic Act No. 8792, An Act Providing for the Recognition and Use of Electronic
Commercial and Non-Commercial Transactions and Documents, Penalties for Unlawful Use
Thereof, and for Other Purposes
12
Section 5. Definition of Terms For the purposes of this Act, the following terms are
defined as follows:
xxx
(c) Electronic Data Message refers to information generated, sent, received or stored
by electronic, optical or similar means.
electronic document under Section 5 (f)13 when the same is used to evidence the

agreement between parties, as well as the obligations they assume, for all and any

kinds of contracts transacted through electronic, optical, or similar means.

These enjoy legal recognition as the functional equivalent of their written

counterparts, as provided by Section 614 and 715 of the same law, and are to be treated

in the same manner as the latter. The rationale behind this functional equivalent

approach is well explained by Disini, Jr.:16 that written documents are relevant only

in terms of the information held within their four corners making the medium where

the same information is contained essentially irrelevant, barring certain exceptions

where the law considers the paper itself as the object evidence. The only real

difference between the written document and an electronically generated one is the

xxx
13
(f) Electronic Document refers to information or the representation of information,
data, figures, symbols or other modes of written expression, described or however
represented, by which a right is established or an obligation extinguished, or by which a
fact may be proved and affirmed, which is received, recorded, transmitted, stored,
processed, retrieved or produced electronically.
xxx
14
Section 6. Legal Recognition of Electronic Data Messages Information shall not be
denied legal effect, validity or enforceability solely on the grounds that it is in the data
message purporting to give rise to such legal effect, or that it is merely referred to in that
electronic data message.
15
Section 7. Legal Recognition of Electronic Documents Electronic documents shall have
the legal effect, validity or enforceability as any other document or legal writing, and
xxx
For evidentiary purposes, an electronic document shall be the functional equivalent of a
written document under existing laws.
xxx
16
Disini, Jr., (Annotations to) The Electronic Commerce Act and Its Implementing Rules
and Regulations, September 2000, p. 10, Philippine Exporters Confederation, Inc.
(PHILEXPORT)
manner in which the underlying information is handled17, and has therefore no

bearing on the validity of its contents. As such, it may be said that electronic data

messages and electronic documents, specifically email in this case, enjoy the same

protection, rights, and uses that traditional mail and documents have in our legal

system.

Coupling this with our previous discussions, we can conclude therefore that emails

enjoy the same protection of privacy as that of traditional written mail; and the sender

thereof is entitled to exercise all rights pertinent to keeping his email correspondence

confidential, including the right to bar other persons from accessing and/or

transmitting the same without his knowledge and consent.

As further reinforcement of this conclusion, the E-Commerce Act, under Section 32,

(and also under its Implementing Rules and Regulations, under Section 47), prohibits

any person who obtained access to any electronic data message, or electronic

document, correspondence, or other material pursuant to any powers conferred

under the act from further conveying or sharing the same with any other

17
Supra, p.11
person18. Violators of this rule may be subject to the penalties provided under Section

33 (d) of the same act19.

3. The Confidentiality Clause is Not the Proper Basis for the Right

Is the Confidentiality Clause in the email valid and enforceable?

There are conflicting opinions on whether confidentiality clauses, which are usually

tacked onto emails before the body of the message or thereafter, are legally binding

upon the recipient thereof. There seems to be generally no laws nor jurisprudence in

the Philippines specifically pertaining to the use of confidentiality clauses in emails in

general, never mind tackling the issue of validity and enforceability of the same; and

even in foreign jurisdictions, there is difficulty in coming up with a general policy on

how to treat the legal effects of such clauses, or if they are even entitled to them in the

first place.

18
Section 32. Obligation of Confidentiality. Except for the purposes authorized under
this Act, any person who obtained access to any electronic key, electronic data message or
electronic document, book, register, correspondence, information, or other material
pursuant to any powers conferred under this Act, shall not convey to or share the same
with any other person. (The same provision is reproduced verbatim under Section 47 of the
Implementing Rules and Regulations.)
19
Section 33. Penalties. The following Acts, shall be penalized by fine and/or
imprisonment, as follows:
xxx
(d) Other violations of the provisions of this Act, shall be penalized with a maximum
penalty of one million pesos (P 1,000,000.00) or six (6) years imprisonment.
xxx
We believe however that the general principles covering obligations and contracts are

applicable in determining whether a confidentiality clause is valid and binding, and

can impose a contractual obligation upon recipients thereof, and may therefore be the

basis for an action against a party who violates its contents.

Under the New Civil Code, contracts are defined as a meeting of minds between two

persons whereby one binds himself, with respect to the other, to give something or to

render some service20, and whatever contract is formed between the parties thereto

has the same force and effect of law, with respect to them21. Given this definition, it

cannot be denied that the confidentiality clause is in essence a contract where the

author-sender is the obligor, the unintended recipient as the obligee, the object being

the act of non-disclosure by the obligee, and the consideration, though not expressly

stated, is the non-filing of any action against the latter by the obligor.

This does not necessarily mean that the unintended recipient is already liable.

Contracts give rise to obligations only when they are considered valid, which requires

that all the essential requisites be present22. Pertinent to our discussion is the presence

20
Article 1305. A contract is a meeting of minds between two persons whereby one binds
himself, with respect to the other, to give something or to render some service.
21
Article 1306. The contracting parties may establish such stipulations, clauses, terms
and conditions as they may deem convenient, provided they are not contrary to law,
morals, good customs, public order, or public policy.
22
Article 1318. There is no contract unless the following requisites concur:
Consent of the contracting parties;
Object certain which is the subject matter of the contract;
Cause of the obligation which is established.
of the element of consent, which necessitates a bilateral assent of the parties to the

terms of the contract, and where the assent or acceptance of one party is made

through a letter or telegram, the contract is not binding until and unless such

acceptance comes to the knowledge of the party who made the offer23. With respect

to the case and clause in question, the important thing to determine is whether, given

the circumstances, there was a valid contract between the parties, and it is our

position that in this case, there is none, for the lack of consent of the recipient. The

clause unilaterally obligates the recipient (not) to perform a certain act, without first

acquiring the latters consent, contrary to the tenor of the aforementioned civil code

provisions, and the requisites provided therein. It therefore cannot stand as the basis

for an action against the erring recipient.

Furthermore, the contract is also invalid for having a consideration contrary to public

policy and public order. Article 1306 provides that the contract is the law between the

parties, and will be upheld, provided that they are not contrary to public order or

public policy24. Public order signifies the public weal, or public policy, and

represents the public, social, and legal interest in private law, that which is permanent

and essential in institutions, which even if favoring some individual to whom the right

23
Article 1319. Consent is manifested by the meeting of the offer and the acceptance
upon the thing and the cause which are to constitute the contract. The offer must be
certain and the acceptance absolute. A qualified acceptance constitutes a counter-offer.
Acceptance made by letter or telegram does not bind the offerer except from the time it
came to his knowledge. The contract, in such a case, is presumed to have been entered
into in the place where the offer was made.
24
Article 1306, supra.
pertains, cannot be left to his own will25. Thus a contract which contains a

consideration or a thing to be done which contravenes some established interest of

society, or is inconsistent with sound policy or good morals, or tends to clearly

undermine the security of individual rights will be declared void26. This includes an

agreement which has for its purpose the concealment of a public offense, the

suppression of evidence thereof, of the stifling of a criminal prosecution, for whatever

consideration27. Being on all fours with the situation in our case, we must again say

that the stipulation is void, since its purpose is principally to prevent the disclosure of

its illegal contents.

This is not to say that the unintended recipient is totally free from any liability. What

is invalidated here is not the author-senders right to confidentiality, but the validity

of the stipulation. The email in this case derives its protection not from the inserted

confidentiality clause, but from the provisions of law discussed in the preceding

sections. The author-sender is not totally stripped of his right, and may even invoke

the same, without having to expressly communicate such through a confidentiality

clause.

What then is the import of these confidentiality clauses? Ultimately they only form

part of the electronic signature of the author-sender, which under the E-Commerce

25
Tolentino, Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil Code of the Philippines, Volume
IV, 2002 , p.419
26
Tolentino, supra., p.420
27
Tolentino, supra., p.421
Act28 may serve to ascertain and distinguish the identity of the person to whom it

pertains, and to authenticate and/or approve the electronic data message or electronic

document to which it is attached. It is equivalent merely to the signature of a person

in a written document29.

4. Recognized Exceptions to the Right to Confidentiality

Given that the right to confidentiality is not affected by the infirmity of the

confidentiality clause, how else will a person be relieved of liability arising from a

violation of the author-senders right to confidentiality? We find our recourse in

determining the recognized exceptions and/or justifications which would render a

person not liable therefor.

Under Section 32 of the E-Commerce Law

There is no specific provision which prohibits and penalizes an individual, who is not

a service provider, and who is in violation of an originators right to confidentiality.

28
Section 5. Definition of Terms For the Purposes of this Act, the following terms are
defined as follows:
xxx
(e) Electronic Signature refers to any distinctive mark, characteristic and/or sound in
electronic form, representing the identity of a person and attached to or logically
associated with the electronic data message or electronic document or any methodology
or procedures employed or adopted by a person and executed or adopted by such person
with the intention of authenticating or approving an electronic data message or electronic
document.
xxx
29
Section 8. Legal Recognition of Electronic Signatures. An electronic signature on the
electronic document shall be equivalent to the signature of a person on a written
document
As discussed before, the law prohibits any person from further communicating any

electronic data message, electronic document, or correspondence received by him in

accordance with the acts therein allowed, except for purposes authorized under the

same30, including but not limited to: the introduction of the electronic data message or

electronic document as evidence in court31, the liabilities of the service provider32,

30
Section 32. Obligation of Confidentiality. Except for the purposes authorized under
this Act, any person who obtained access to any electronic key, electronic data message or
electronic document, book, register, correspondence, information, or other material
pursuant to any powers conferred under this Act, shall not convey to or share the same
with any other person. (The same provision is reproduced verbatim under Section 47 of the
Implementing Rules and Regulations.)
31
Section 18. Admissibility and Evidential Weight of Electronic Data Messages and
Electronic Documents. For evidentiary purposes, an electronic document or electronic
data message shall be the functional equivalent of a written document under existing laws.
In any legal proceeding, nothing in the application of the rules on evidence shall deny the
admissibility of an electronic data message or electronic document in evidence:
On the sole ground that it is in electronic form; or
On the ground that it is not in the standard written form.
The Act does not modify any statutory rule relating to the admissibility of electronic data
messages or electronic documents, except the rules relating to authentication and best
evidence.
32
Section 44. Extent of Liability of a Service Provider. Except as otherwise provided in
this Section, no person or party shall be subject to any civil or criminal liability in respect of
the electronic data message or electronic document for which the person or party acting as
a service provider as defined in Section 6(n) of these Rules merely provides access if such
liability is founded on:
The obligations and liabilities of the parties under the electronic data message or
electronic document;
The making, publication, dissemination or distribution of such material or any
statement made in such material, including possible infringement of any right subsisting in
or in relation to such material: Provided, That
1. The service provider:
1. does not have actual knowledge, or
2. is not aware of the facts or circumstances from which it is apparent, that the
making,
publication, dissemination or distribution of such material is unlawful or infringes any
rights subsisting in or in relation to such material, or (3) having become aware, advises the
affected parties within a reasonable time, to refer the matter to the appropriate authority
or, at the option of the parties, to avail of alternative modes of
dispute resolution;
and other such acts which are not incompatible with the provisions of the E-

Commerce Law. This is to be taken, however, as per Disini, Jr., to apply only to law

enforcement officers who, through the service of search warrants, come into

possession of electronic documents or acquire access to electronic keys33, in

accordance with the provisions and authority granted unto them by the said law, and

with their official duties or functions. Aside from this provision, and the general penal

clause34 promising to punish all other violations of the act by fine or by imprisonment

or both, no express provision exists which exactly points to the liability of the private

person, in the first instance, making such unauthorized disclosure; and consequently,

there is also no specific provision providing the exceptions thereto.

1. The service provider does not knowingly receive a financial benefit directly
attributable to the unlawful or infringing activity; and
2. The service provider does not directly commit any infringement or other unlawful
act and does not induce or cause another person or party to commit any infringement or
other unlawful act and/or does not benefit financially from the infringing activity or
unlawful act of another person or party;
Provided, further, That nothing in this Section shall affect:
Any obligation founded on contract;
The obligation of a service provider as such under a licensing or other regulatory
regime established under written law;
Any obligation imposed under any written law; or
The civil liability of any party to the extent that such liability forms the basis for
injunctive relief issued by a court under any law requiring that the service provider take or
refrain from actions necessary to remove, block or deny access to any material, or to
preserve evidence of a violation of law.
33
Disini, Jr., (Annotations to) The Electronic Commerce Act and Its Implementing Rules
and Regulations, September 2000, p. 36, Philippine Exporters Confederation, Inc.
(PHILEXPORT)
34
Section 33 (d) Other violations of the provisions of this Act, shall be penalized with a
maximum penalty of one million pesos (P 1,000,000.00) or six (6) years imprisonment.
To aid us in the interpretation of the provision, reference must be made to its source,

which again according to Disini, Jr., is the Electronic Transactions Act of

Singapore35, and to Section 37 of the E-Commerce law, which makes reference to the

UNCITRAL Model Law on E-commerce of 199636.

The ETA of Singapore

The obligation of confidentiality is similarly set forth in Section 48 of the

Singaporean law37. Under the provision, three exceptions are definitively identified:

that is, the disclosure is for a purpose of the Act; that the purpose is for the

prosecution of an offence; or that the same is pursuant to a lawful order of the court.

Otherwise, the act of disclosure is punishable by fine or imprisonment. However, as is

the case in the corresponding provision in our local E-Commerce Law, the same is

35
Disini, Jr., (Annotations to) The Electronic Commerce Act and Its Implementing Rules
and Regulations, September 2000, p. 4, Philippine Exporters Confederation, Inc.
(PHILEXPORT)
36
Section 37. Statutory Interpretation. Unless otherwise expressly provided for, the
interpretation of this Act shall give due regard to its international origin and the need to
promote uniformity in its application and the observance of good faith in international
trade relations. The generally accepted principles of international law and convention on
electronic commerce shall likewise be considered.
37
48. Obligation of confidentiality
(1) Except for the purposes of this Act or for any prosecution for an offence under any
written law or pursuant to an order of court, no person who has, pursuant to any powers
conferred under this Part, obtained access to any electronic record, book, register,
correspondence, information, document or other material shall disclose such electronic
record, book, register, correspondence, information, document or other material to any
other person.
(2) Any person who contravenes subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence and shall be
liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding 12 months or to both.
intended to apply only to law enforcement officers acting within the bounds of their

authorities as such, or upon a lawful court order.

UNICITRAL Model Law

On the other hand, the Model Law provides no specific provision mirroring the ones

in our local e-commerce law and in the Singaporean law. It does however emphasize

the purpose and general principles for which the veracity and legal effectiveness of

electronic data messages and electronic documents has been established and

recognized: that is, to promote international trade by providing increased legal

certainty as to the conclusion of contracts by electronic means. It deals not only with

the issue of contract formation but also with the form in which an offer and an

acceptance may be expressed38. The Model Law, then, can be said to be more focused

on authenticating or validating the usage and reliability of electronic data messages

and electronic documents as valid originals and/or alternatives to the written form,

and in bringing such electronic media to the same standing as the latter, with respect

to legal recognition and admissibility as evidence. It makes no express assertions as to

the confidentiality of the contents of such electronic data messages and electronic

documents, and the leaves the determination of the same to the enacting body of each

local jurisdiction which adopts the framework set forth by the Model Law39.

38
UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce with Guide to Enactment 1996 (1999),
United Nations Publications, p. 46
39
UNCITRAL Model Law, supra., page 19
Therefore it becomes necessary for us to determine which other local laws may apply,

so as to relieve the unintended recipient of his liability for violating the right of the

author-sender to confidentiality.

Limitations on the Exercise of Ones Rights, in General

We have consistently stated in our discussion that the exercise of a persons right is

not always absolute, and will have to be considered alongside the overriding interests

of the State, and the rights of other persons. Thus under Section 19 of the New Civil

Code, every person must consider justice, equity, honesty, and good faith in the

exercise of his rights and the performance of his duties40, and cannot abuse whatever

right he is thereto entitled, to the prejudice of other persons. The responsibility arising

from abuse of rights has a mixed character, because it implies a reconciliation

between an act, which is the result of an individual juridical will, and the social

function of right, such that a right recognized to be lawful may still be contrary to law

in the general and more abstract sense, when tempered with the principles of

equity41. Considerations of good faith, good morals, public order, and public policy,

under the authority of this provision, may be the basis to find a person liable, and vice

versa, to excuse one from liability.

40
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.
41
Tolentino, Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil Code of the Philippines, Volume
I, 2002 , p.61
Operating on the assumption, therefore, that the unintended recipient in this case

caused the publication of the contents of the email in good faith, and in consideration

of public interest and public safety, he cannot be faulted for doing so, and thus cannot

be made liable for his acts. The exercise of the author-senders right to confidentiality

must be tempered with the overriding interest of the State and of the public to protect

itself from criminal acts and the perpetrators thereof.

Pertinent to this argument is Section 13 (c)42 and (f)43 of the Data Privacy

Act44, which allows the processing of sensitive personal information and privileged

information without the data subjects consent, in cases where the purpose and policy

behind the processing prevails over the data subjects right to confidentiality.

Specifically stated in the said provisions are the concerns of protecting the life and

health of the data subject or another person, and protecting lawful rights and interests

of natural or legal persons in court proceedings, or the establishment, exercise, or

defense of legal claims, or when provided to government or public authority. Though

42
SEC. 13. Sensitive Personal Information and Privileged Information. The processing of
sensitive personal information and privileged information shall be prohibited, except in the
following cases:
xxx
(c) The processing is necessary to protect the life and health of the data subject or
another person, and the data subject is not legally or physically able to express his or her
consent prior to the processing;
xxx
43
(f) The processing concerns such personal information as is necessary for the
protection of lawful rights and interests of natural or legal persons in court proceedings, or
the establishment, exercise or defense of legal claims, or when provided to government or
public authority.
44
Republic Act no. 10173 An Act Protecting Individual Personal Information In
Information And Communications Systems In The Government And The Private Sector,
Creating For This Purpose A National Privacy Commission, And For Other Purposes
the foregoing it not squarely applicable to the issue in this case, the logic and

rationale behind the allowance of these exceptions may be similarly applied that is,

interests of greater urgency, importance, and effect may take precedence over an

individuals rights.

5. Conclusion

Given the foregoing, we can say that with respect to the issue of confidentiality of the

email, the unintended recipient who discloses the same to the public, doing so in good

faith, and for the purpose of protecting public safety and public order, will not be

liable for the breach of that right. Moreover, it is the author-sender whose right will

be tempered with public interest, and he cannot, upon the ground of such breach,

institute any action against the unintended recipient.

1. On the Issue of Libel

In publishing the contents of the email to the public, will the unintended recipient be

liable for cyber libel?

2. Elements of Cyber Libel /Llibel

Under Section 4 (c) (4)45 of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 201246, libel

committed through computer or similar means is punished in accordance with the

provisions of the Revised Penal Code, with the condition that the penalty be raised

one degree higher than that provided therein. Simply put, it operates as a

qualifying/aggravating circumstance, and the more substantial provisions in the RPC

on libel shall govern.

Therefore, in order for the unintended recipient to be liable, the elements of Libel, as

defined under Article 35347 of the RPC, plus the additional requirement provided in

the preceding paragraph must all concur. The absence of one of the requisites under

the RPC will necessarily negate the charge of libel; and further, under Article 36148 of

the same law, the defense of proof of truth is recognized to have the effect of

acquittal.

45
SEC. 4. Cybercrime Offenses. The following acts constitute the offense of cybercrime
punishable under this Act:
xxx
Content-related Offenses:
xxx
(4) Libel. The unlawful or prohibited acts of libel as defined in Article 355 of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended, committed through a computer system or any other
similar means which may be devised in the future.
46
Republic Act 10175, An Act Defining Cybercrime, Providing For The Prevention,
Investigation, Suppression And The Imposition Of Penalties Therefor And For Other Purposes
47
Art. 353. Definition of libel. A libel is public and malicious imputation of a crime, or
of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or
circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical
person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.
48
Art. 361. Proof of the truth. In every criminal prosecution for libel, the truth may be
given in evidence to the court and if it appears that the matter charged as libelous is true,
and, moreover, that it was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the
defendants shall be acquitted. xxx
In the case at bar, the charge of libel will not lie. The unintended recipient may make

use of the defense under Article 361, in that the disclosure made is true, and the

disclosure itself was attended by good intentions and a justifiable motive. Such

intentions cancel out the existence of malice, and therefore no charge for libel will

stand. In this case, again, operating on the assumption that the publication made by

the unintended recipient was made in good faith, with good intentions, and with a

justifiable motive (that is, the protection of the public against criminal actions, and

upholding public order and public policy), the unintended recipient will not be

criminally liable therefor.

3. How to Present this Proof of Truth

Under Section 1249 of the E-Commerce Law, and as already discussed in the

preceding sections, emails, as electronic data messages or electronic documents, are

49
Section 12. Admissibility and Evidential Weight of Electronic Data Message or
Electronic Document. In any legal
proceedings, nothing in the application of the rules on evidence shall deny the
admissibility of an electronic data
message or electronic document in evidence
(a) On the sole ground that it is in electronic form; or
(b) On the ground that it is not in the standard written form, and the electronic data
message or electronic document meeting, and complying with the requirements under
Sections 6 or 7 hereof shall be the best evidence of the agreement and transaction
contained therein.
In assessing the evidential weight of an electronic data message or electronic document,
the reliability of the manner in which it was generated, stored or communicated, the
reliability of the manner in which its originator was identified, and other relevant factors
shall be given due regard.
to be given the same weight as their written counterparts, when used as evidence in

court. This is subject to the provisions in the same act providing for the accepted

methods of proving the documents integrity and authenticity, as specified under

Sections 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 14.