Whether or not Chan Robles, Arellano Lawphil, UST Repository of laws and other Philippine’s social networks repository of laws can be compelled to remove the names of the persons mentioned therein on the ground of privacy

Whether or not Chan Robles, Arellano Lawphil, UST Repository of laws and other Philippine’s social networks repository of laws can be compelled to remove the names of the persons mentioned therein on the ground of privacy

The gist of the issue in this topic calls for the alteration of the case long decided by the Supreme Court.

A reading of the 1987 Constitution, Article VIII, Sec 4(3) provides that Cases or matters heard by a division shall be decided or resolved with the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon, and in no case without the concurrence of at least three of such Members. When the required number is not obtained, the case shall be decided en banc: Provided, that no doctrine or principle of law laid down by the court in a decision rendered en banc or in division may be modified or reversed except by the court sitting en banc. (Emphasis supplied).

And under the doctrine of finality of judgment or immutability of judgment, a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable, and may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law, and whether it be made by the court that rendered it or by the Highest Court of the land. Any act which violates this principle must immediately be struck down. The exception to this doctrine, as provided in the case of Villa v. GSIS, G.R. No. 174642, October 31, 2009, are: (1) the correction of clerical errors; (2) the so-called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party; (3) void judgments; and (4) whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision rendering its execution unjust and inequitable. (Emphasis supplied).

Also in a long line of decisions decided by the Supreme Court (U.S. vs. Vayson, 27 Phil. 447; U.S. vs. De Iro, 33 Phil. 14; U.S. vs. Balliad and Tamaray, 35 Phil. 14; People vs. Buyson Lampa, 58 Phil. 757. See also Sec. 7, Rule 120, Rules of Court), It is the settled rule in this jurisdiction that the court has power to alter, modify, or even set aside, its own decisions, and even order a new trial, at any time before the decision becomes final, or before an appeal from that decision has been perfected. (Emphasis supplied).

Prescinding from the above-mentioned legal basis, it can be safely deduced that social networks repository of laws in the Philippines cannot be compelled by any person whose name stated therein to remove their name on the ground of privacy.

Firstly, the Constitution is clear that only the court sitting en banc can modify the doctrine it has lay down; secondly, the doctrine of immutability of judgment, as lay down by the Supreme Court, forbids the modification of the decision with certain exceptions; thirdly, the modification or alteration of the decision on the ground of privacy is not one of the exception enumerated to be exempted from the immutability of judgment, and fourthly, granting that the decision can be modified by removing their names therein as demanded by the affected persons, the social network has no power to do it as it clear from the long line of decided cases that only the Supreme Court has power to alter, modify, or even set aside, its own decisions .