RLA v. PLDT Enterprise (NPC 18-010)

In this case, the recorded means that manifest the consent of the Complainant is PLDT’s Application Form and the attached PLDT’s Terms and Conditions that was printed on the back of the Form. We note however, that while the Terms and Conditions discuss the contractual relations that govern the usage, grant and maintenance of the DSL services between the Complainant and PLDT, the same does not include authority or consent to publish the list of names, contact information and address in the White Pages. 

PLDT has neither obtained the consent of the Complainant to publish his personal information in the White Pages, nor it is otherwise authorized under the Data Privacy Act or any existing law. Hence, PLDT is liable for violating Section 28 of the DPA. 

The Commission holds PLDT liable for violating Section 32 of the DPA. It must be noted that the copies of PLDT’s 2017 White Page or Directory is distributed to its subscribers. All the personal information found therein are disclosed to PLDT’ subscribers and to other persons who may be given a copy thereof. Persons who received a copy of said directory is considered a third party regarding the processing of Complainant’s personal information. Thus, Complainant’s personal information was disclosed to third parties. 

The Commission resolves to AWARD Complainant, RLA, nominal damages in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) for Respondent PLDT Enterprise’s violation of Complainant’s rights under the Data Privacy Act. 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: